Posted: 1/7/2026 9:06:33 PM EDT
| 7,000-year Old Submerged Wall, plus other stuff. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Just natural formations.. Nothing to see here... 
|
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Around here, folks buried during that timeframe are fish structure now. Manasota Key offshore burial site |
|
Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
9 meters under the surface, 120 meters long, 20 meters wide and 2 meters high isn't a wall, it's a dock built when the sea level was lower. More questions are why was it abandoned instead of built up and lengthened as the sea level rose. Were the builders just not around anymore having succumbed to invasion, disease or something else? |
|
Originally Posted By engineer61: 9 meters under the surface, 120 meters long, 20 meters wide and 2 meters high isn't a wall, it's a dock built when the sea level was lower. More questions are why was it abandoned instead of built up and lengthened as the sea level rose. Were the builders just not around anymore having succumbed to invasion, disease or something else? Interesting questions. It's also simply possible they saw the futility in continued building. The sea level rise was hypothesized to have occurred in a relatively short span of time, i.e. generations, not millennia (although evidence suggests 1000 years+). If you knew your expansion efforts were going to be in vain, or at least suspected it, would you have dragged more monoliths to the area or retreated inland? Remember, this is off the coast of France...which is all but in Doggerland. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Where did all that water come from? All of the North Pole and parts of Antarctica is just ice floating on the ocean, so when it melts, the water level won't change. Think about your drink, when the ice melts, your glass doesn't suddenly overflow. The only water locked up is mostly on top of Greenland and on Antarctica, with the expansion of water as it freezes, there's not as much water hanging out as those miles of ice, either. There is a bit in Glaciers remaining in mountainous areas, but they're not going to flash into water without humans having severe issues from other aspects from that heat (More than A Solar maximum as seen in tree/ice cores). Did some aliens come by with tankers and dump some petagallons of water on Earth and then after a while come and take it back? Just the ice on Greenland and Antarctica doesn't explain it. Antarctica was probably ice free when the Northern Hemisphere (Canada/US) were covered by glaciers, though they weren't as many miles deep, they were expansive, and they melted and that water then froze on Antarctica is my theory. It's just moving around and there's not enough to submerge much more than is currently submerged, we're at an oceanic high point, judging from all the things found offshore in 20-100 ft of water on continental shelves. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: Where did all that water come from? All of the North Pole and parts of Antarctica is just ice floating on the ocean, so when it melts, the water level won't change. Think about your drink, when the ice melts, your glass doesn't suddenly overflow. The only water locked up is mostly on top of Greenland and on Antarctica, with the expansion of water as it freezes, there's not as much water hanging out as those miles of ice, either. There is a bit in Glaciers remaining in mountainous areas, but they're not going to flash into water without humans having severe issues from other aspects from that heat (More than A Solar maximum as seen in tree/ice cores). Did some aliens come by with tankers and dump some petagallons of water on Earth and then after a while come and take it back? Just the ice on Greenland and Antarctica doesn't explain it. Antarctica was probably ice free when the Northern Hemisphere (Canada/US) were covered by glaciers, though they weren't as many miles deep, they were expansive, and they melted and that water then froze on Antarctica is my theory. It's just moving around and there's not enough to submerge much more than is currently submerged, we're at an oceanic high point, judging from all the things found offshore in 20-100 ft of water on continental shelves. Originally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Where did all that water come from? All of the North Pole and parts of Antarctica is just ice floating on the ocean, so when it melts, the water level won't change. Think about your drink, when the ice melts, your glass doesn't suddenly overflow. The only water locked up is mostly on top of Greenland and on Antarctica, with the expansion of water as it freezes, there's not as much water hanging out as those miles of ice, either. There is a bit in Glaciers remaining in mountainous areas, but they're not going to flash into water without humans having severe issues from other aspects from that heat (More than A Solar maximum as seen in tree/ice cores). Did some aliens come by with tankers and dump some petagallons of water on Earth and then after a while come and take it back? Just the ice on Greenland and Antarctica doesn't explain it. Antarctica was probably ice free when the Northern Hemisphere (Canada/US) were covered by glaciers, though they weren't as many miles deep, they were expansive, and they melted and that water then froze on Antarctica is my theory. It's just moving around and there's not enough to submerge much more than is currently submerged, we're at an oceanic high point, judging from all the things found offshore in 20-100 ft of water on continental shelves. Attached File Rivers in cold areas flood every year from just the melting off of annual snowfall. It's not hard to imagine what that much ice did to the sea level once you understand the scale. @brass |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: You need to listen to Randall Carlson a bit more. The ice sheet that covered most of North America extended all the way down to where Montana is today and it was 2.5 MILES thick. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/4019/IMG_8035_png-3690988.JPG Rivers in cold areas flood every year from just the melting off of annual snowfall. It's not hard to imagine what that much ice did to the sea level once you understand the scale. @brass Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Where did all that water come from? All of the North Pole and parts of Antarctica is just ice floating on the ocean, so when it melts, the water level won't change. Think about your drink, when the ice melts, your glass doesn't suddenly overflow. The only water locked up is mostly on top of Greenland and on Antarctica, with the expansion of water as it freezes, there's not as much water hanging out as those miles of ice, either. There is a bit in Glaciers remaining in mountainous areas, but they're not going to flash into water without humans having severe issues from other aspects from that heat (More than A Solar maximum as seen in tree/ice cores). Did some aliens come by with tankers and dump some petagallons of water on Earth and then after a while come and take it back? Just the ice on Greenland and Antarctica doesn't explain it. Antarctica was probably ice free when the Northern Hemisphere (Canada/US) were covered by glaciers, though they weren't as many miles deep, they were expansive, and they melted and that water then froze on Antarctica is my theory. It's just moving around and there's not enough to submerge much more than is currently submerged, we're at an oceanic high point, judging from all the things found offshore in 20-100 ft of water on continental shelves. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/4019/IMG_8035_png-3690988.JPG Rivers in cold areas flood every year from just the melting off of annual snowfall. It's not hard to imagine what that much ice did to the sea level once you understand the scale. @brass Yes, I see that, but it explains how these artifacts/buildings/ruins are on the continental shelves while all the ice was over the Northern Hemisphere. Those large sheets melting are what I think gave us the Grand Canyon, Washington state, all the big rocks getting washed into the Dakotas (the East half, anyway, west half has entirely different terrain in SD), and many other features. There's not more large areas of miles deep ice to melt now. Right now, we're in a relatively ice free world and so there are a large number of sites found underwater from around our own continental shelf, to the Mediterranean finding ruins dozens of miles offshore as well as around to Japan and Polynesia having ruins currently underwater. When the ice sheet over Americas and Russia melted, the "Great Flood" mentioned in all the religions/myths occurred. This could also be the time where the Strait of Gibraltar was overtopped and the land bridge from Africa to Europe was washed away while the Mediterranean became an offshoot of the Atlantic ocean. Why are the oceans depths quite deep while the Strait of Gibraltar has erosion lines and is only 1000-3000 ft deep and 9 miles at the narrow point while the rest of the Mediterranean is around 4000-5000 ft deep and the Atlantic is, well, "super deep". This could have also been part of "The Flood". I think there needs to be a whole lot of exploration under Morocco. This detail isn't really discussed much, well, at all outside fringes like the little people in this forum. I'm not saying it's not possible to have ice covering large land masses, but I am saying we aren't going to see the ocean levels increase much more than they are right now (barely outside tidal variance if the potential ice to melt did melt), with the ice sheets mostly retreated on the land masses in the Northern Hemisphere save for Greenland as large chunks of locked up water. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: I'm not saying it's not possible to have ice covering large land masses, but I am saying we aren't going to see the ocean levels increase much more than they are right now (barely outside tidal variance if the potential ice to melt did melt), with the ice sheets mostly retreated on the land masses in the Northern Hemisphere save for Greenland as large chunks of locked up water. Not really sure where you're heading with this  15,000 years ago an absolutely enormous amount of the Earth's water was locked up in continental ice sheets. Then, the last ice age melted, and except for some high altitude places, the glaciers melted and the sea levels rose...a lot. A metric shit ton. Enough to submerge places like Doggerland and anything else that was at a lower elevation than the water rise. When things like this were happening, it's a safe bet that the people living in the coastal regions and even inland in certain places would have developed flood mythology. Hell, where I live right now was under one thousand feet of water, just 13,000 years ago. Look up Glacial Lake Missoula. You can find the high water marks on the mountaintops in the area. It filled and drained a minimum of six times, and some theorize up to hundreds. The unrelenting rush of water to the Columbia River Basin created the Scablands in Washington State. Just...an obscenity of water, each time the ice dam gave way. 500 cubic miles, half the volume of Lake Michigan. Suddenly rushing west, all at once. People lived here, and witnessed this. Whole groups of Native Americans who happened to be in the way would have simply disappeared. The survivors who witnessed it would have been dumbstruck. A few miles from were I work you can stand at a roadside plaque explaining that the rolling hills you see below you, 50'+ high, were the ripples from the water leaving. And this wasn't the only place that was happening. Just the biggest. No one is saying it's going to happen again. Not to that extent. However, a simple search says that Antarctica alone holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by 190 feet. If all the ice in the world melted, 230 feet. So...yes, the sea levels could rise dramatically, unless you're saying 200+ feet of rise isn't dramatic. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Those darn Flintstones and Rubbles driving around causing climate change. |
|
Originally Posted By mardoc: Those darn Flintstones and Rubbles driving around causing climate change.  No doubt. All the dust raised from those constantly moving feet. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: No one is saying it's going to happen again. Not to that extent. However, a simple search says that Antarctica alone holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by 190 feet. If all the ice in the world melted, 230 feet. So...yes, the sea levels could rise dramatically, unless you're saying 200+ feet of rise isn't dramatic. I guess I'm more of the opinion that if conditions change to melt all the ice on Antarctica and Greenland, we will be having a hell of a lot more issues than the sea levels rising, even if we live long enough to see them go up enough to drown NYC and other coastal metro areas. All that ice turning to water isn't going to be an overnight event (while glacial lakes draining likely were, or over a couple weeks due to amount of water..). It will have likely a century warning and the whole "Global Warming!!!!" scare won't even need to be talked about because we're going to be burning up and wondering why winter seems to be slowing down and then part of oral history when it just dips down to 70°F for a few months a year, there needs to be a shitload of BTU worth of heat to liquefy all ice, especially for Antarctica where the sun doesn't hit directly in any season, unlike Greenland and other glaciers. The central areas and high lands will survive and maybe the humans around will build some large stone archives of knowledge and seal them to withstand whatever while people move to caves in safer areas carrying all the weapons and "old world" technology they can (non-electrical devices from lathes to sewing machines and books that explain how to run them and books teaching our alphabet and the English language for their children in case the oral histories fail. Seems the rocky mountains just over the Colorado river in a cave would be safe if you were out of Bear country (though they'd be hiking North long before the last hundreds of humans were looking for a "Well, we go here and restart civilization in 5 or 10 thousand years....". Like the Pole shifts (which is happening before our eyes), it's not going to be something that happens in a lifetime. The magnetic declination adjustments have been climbing for quite a while, started out under a degree per decade and now it's that much per year and the North Pole is nearly at UK and headed for Africa, the strength of our field has been declining at nearly the same rate but not quite. We have lots of information but there's nothing we can do about it so the news isn't going to be alerting the public about getting SPF 2000 sunscreen any time soon. So, point of my post was that it's not something we need to worry about because we can't prevent it and we're not getting out of life alive anyway, so don't fret. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Sea levels were not only much lower during the "Ice Ages" (periods of glacial maximums), but were also much higher during the interglacial periods (times with no glaciers anywhere). As much as 250+ ft higher. Don't believe me? Come drive around Florida with a geologist. I can show you ancient sand dunes and an ancient seashore in Polk County near the center of the State. Florida Geological Survey Map Series No. 71 - Terraces and Shorelines of Florida Attached File Melt all the glaciers, and Polk County will be beachfront once again. |
Thought this was a fun and germane clip. At the 10 minute mark, talking about the marshlands of spain. The Search for Atlantis | The UnXplained (S2, E10) | Full Episode | History |
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” - Henri Bergson
|
Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Ice Age era gacial flooding is epic in scale, almost hard to imagine.  Huge Floods in the Pacific Northwest |
|
My memory isn’t as good as it once was. But I seem to recall from watching Randall Carlson that at the end of the last ice age, his hypothesis is that the ice melt off happened in an extremely fast and catastrophic manner. Due to a multiple asteroid impact event. I’ve wondered if our sattelite imaging technology is currently advanced enough to detect structures beyond the current shores of the oceans around the world. |
|
Originally Posted By brass: So, point of my post was that it's not something we need to worry about because we can't prevent it and we're not getting out of life alive anyway, so don't fret. Originally Posted By HighlanderI: My memory isn’t as good as it once was. But I seem to recall from watching Randall Carlson that at the end of the last ice age, his hypothesis is that the ice melt off happened in an extremely fast and catastrophic manner. Due to a multiple asteroid impact event. I’ve wondered if our sattelite imaging technology is currently advanced enough to detect structures beyond the current shores of the oceans around the world. I think estimates vary. I've heard anything from a few hundred years (several generations) to a few thousand for the sea level rise after the last glacial maximum. The asteroid impact event is a pretty controversial take, and IIRC it's not asteroid impacts but multiple cometary Tunguska-like events, which is extremely convenient for the theory because there are no craters to provide proof. It's also counterintuitive, because things like asteroids, comets, super-volcanoes, etc. tend to cause global cooling, not vast melt-offs of continental ice shelves. But, yeah, as brass says...we'll likely all be long dead before we see significant change. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By flcracker: Sea levels were not only much lower during the "Ice Ages" (periods of glacial maximums), but were also much higher during the interglacial periods (times with no glaciers anywhere). As much as 250+ ft higher. Don't believe me? Come drive around Florida with a geologist. I can show you ancient sand dunes and an ancient seashore in Polk County near the center of the State. Florida Geological Survey Map Series No. 71 - Terraces and Shorelines of Florida https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/74872/1000017468_jpg-3691507.JPG Melt all the glaciers, and Polk County will be beachfront once again. First, a lot of those peaks were wave action instead of fully submerged, that is the top 25-50 ft, but there was a shitload of water. It overtopped potential land bridge across Mediterranean maybe making the Bosphorus as well as the North America/Asia (AK-Russia) land bridge and we are still in the higher point of water compared to how low the sea level also goes, that is what started this whole thing with my hijack. The ruins in OP are obviously not natural contrary to my comment, and are actually some of the higher elevation submerged ruins around, since many are 150-200 ft deep. My question is where did the water go? Was the Mediterranean 200 ft shallower before being inundated after an ice age? Did the Black and Caspian seas used to be simple depressions in the land and thus another reservoir for water that used to be dry land, the land locked large lakes without a river feeding them are obvious candidates (See: Lake Baikal which is holding 20% of the worlds unfrozen fresh water), and the Great Lakes could have been nothing until the ice age dug out some huge pits that naturally filled with water, those are huge reservoirs when summed up, so I don't think there's enough ice to drown those areas again, though the miles deep ice locations are a substantial reservoir and time machine of climate and even life forms. When 3 miles of ice on Antarctica and Greenland (12% of world average covered by 1 mile of ice) and melts, there is still 70% of the world covered by water that is also 3 miles deep, with napkin math, I come up with "new lakes and deeper oceans are now holding the majority of melted water from ice age". Moving sea levels from -200 ft to +200 ft from present level requires a shitload of ice, miles deep, and when it melts, Randall Carlson explains what happens far better than I. We should just get him to join here so some of us learn better. 
|
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Map showing were in the world the ice sheets covered at the maximums of the last ice age. It isn't just North America, Scandinavia through Northwestern Russia was also covered, and the Antarctic sheet was much thicker also, so contained much more water over the land sections even though a lot of the increased area was over ocean.
|
|
Originally Posted By engineer61: Map showing were in the world the ice sheets covered at the maximums of the last ice age. It isn't just North America, Scandinavia through Northwestern Russia was also covered, and the Antarctic sheet was much thicker also, so contained much more water over the land sections even though a lot of the increased area was over ocean. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/final-LGM-2.jpg The problem I see with these maps is that while they give a good idea of where the ice was, they overlay it on current bodies of water and extents of oceans. With marine fossils found on top of ridges in Montana, there must have been many ice ages that have come and gone, in addition to a bunch of tectonic activity changing the shape of land in addition to depths and shapes of water. On that map, in addition to the idiot that made the color key scheme, I believe Siberia would have been covered with much more ice than that map is showing, unless I am reading it wrong. It is showing the lack of the Mediterranean and some other features changed, but it's still an artist rendition using a lot of today's geography as a starting point (which is sort of a requirement because we can't 100% for sure say what things looked like in the various ice ages). It has changed so much from a million years ago we cannot comprehend it, like the marine fossils in the Rocky Mountains. Some say it's all tectonic folding that moved the sea floor higher and I can agree with that and others say the water was that deep, but we don't know how high that bit of land was when the water was "that deep". The amount of water on Earth has been nearly constant, with some loss from it seeping up in the atmosphere and out to space, but a very tiny amount, same with nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and all the other light atmospheric elements. Water is pretty heavy and so it doesn't evaporate that quick (Side rant: Same story with the Coolants from Dow Chemical. Freon and other Chlorine coolants were simply too heavy to make it to the 10-30 mile altitudes and 'eat' ozone. They used that as an excuse to sell new coolant patents, though sitting in a room full of only freon probably isn't healthy, recovery of freon now done with vacuum pumps now nullifies all that anyway so why do they keep banning coolants and pushing new ones? Think about it....).. Ok, where was I... We don't have a map of what the world was like but we can make a damn good guess at least back to where South America tucks into Africa, Europe tucks into South America, Central America, and the US, and we end up with a very large land mass with absolutely no clue which dirt was ocean floor back then and which dirt held the ice and here the humans lived, and I think humans did live there, since if you tuck things together back to near Pangea, languages and writing systems start to make sense on why similar things are used 3000 miles apart today. In short, we can't use current maps and assumptions of where bodies of waters are to make definitive statements as to where water was before the ice age(s), so making maps over current oceans and bodies of water is not an honest representation of what was really going on during the major ice ages (we have a clue from the "mini ice ages" and cool periods but that is recent history compared to what sculpted our current maps). I think the climate change alarmists are intentionally misrepresenting the amounts of water and bodies of water filled with ice by putting ice sheets over a current map of the world. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: The problem I see with these maps is that while they give a good idea of where the ice was, they overlay it on current bodies of water and extents of oceans. With marine fossils found on top of ridges in Montana, there must have been many ice ages that have come and gone, in addition to a bunch of tectonic activity changing the shape of land in addition to depths and shapes of water. On that map, in addition to the idiot that made the color key scheme, I believe Siberia would have been covered with much more ice than that map is showing, unless I am reading it wrong. It is showing the lack of the Mediterranean and some other features changed, but it's still an artist rendition using a lot of today's geography as a starting point (which is sort of a requirement because we can't 100% for sure say what things looked like in the various ice ages). It has changed so much from a million years ago we cannot comprehend it, like the marine fossils in the Rocky Mountains. Some say it's all tectonic folding that moved the sea floor higher and I can agree with that and others say the water was that deep, but we don't know how high that bit of land was when the water was "that deep". The amount of water on Earth has been nearly constant, with some loss from it seeping up in the atmosphere and out to space, but a very tiny amount, same with nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and all the other light atmospheric elements. Water is pretty heavy and so it doesn't evaporate that quick (Side rant: Same story with the Coolants from Dow Chemical. Freon and other Chlorine coolants were simply too heavy to make it to the 10-30 mile altitudes and 'eat' ozone. They used that as an excuse to sell new coolant patents, though sitting in a room full of only freon probably isn't healthy, recovery of freon now done with vacuum pumps now nullifies all that anyway so why do they keep banning coolants and pushing new ones? Think about it....).. Ok, where was I... We don't have a map of what the world was like but we can make a damn good guess at least back to where South America tucks into Africa, Europe tucks into South America, Central America, and the US, and we end up with a very large land mass with absolutely no clue which dirt was ocean floor back then and which dirt held the ice and here the humans lived, and I think humans did live there, since if you tuck things together back to near Pangea, languages and writing systems start to make sense on why similar things are used 3000 miles apart today. In short, we can't use current maps and assumptions of where bodies of waters are to make definitive statements as to where water was before the ice age(s), so making maps over current oceans and bodies of water is not an honest representation of what was really going on during the major ice ages (we have a clue from the "mini ice ages" and cool periods but that is recent history compared to what sculpted our current maps). I think the climate change alarmists are intentionally misrepresenting the amounts of water and bodies of water filled with ice by putting ice sheets over a current map of the world. To be fair, what you believe contradicts with what science thinks it knows about geology. You're talking about this subject like there's only a few thousand years of existence here, i.e. the world was created on October whatever in 4004 BC. It wasn't. It's been here for 4.5 billion years, and you are absolutely right in saying there have been multiple ice ages. Thousands of them. Hell, there have been periods where there was zero Ice, and also "snowball Earth's," when ice covered nearly everything except the tropics. Pangea existed hundreds of millions of years ago. And we can still see the outlines of the "puzzle piece" continents today. Before that? Rodinia, Columbia/Nuna, (1.2, 1.8 billion years ago) etc. So, when someone produces a map that shows what the elevations were 15,000 years ago, i.e. .0008% of that time ago, and .0003% of the Earth's age ago, it's a pretty damn good bet that map is accurate. The Earth changes, the continents drift, very slowly. Literally nothing significant has changed in 15,000 years except sea level rise. It absolutely IS an honest representation of what went on in the last major ice age. Absolutely. There was no writing system extant in Pangea, hundreds of millions of years ago, unless algae was writing. People have only been here for MAYBE a half million years. Hominids for 7 million. The dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Pangea was a distant memory by then. There are marine fossils on mountaintops because those lands were seas millions and millions of years ago, and continental drift and collisions raising mountains has lifted them to where they are now. It's why the Rockies are so much higher than the Appalachians, because they're younger and haven't been subjected to as long of a time frame of continental drift and erosion. You're thinking of this in terms of thousands of years. Start thinking of it in terms of millions, and billions of years. The Acasta gneiss in Canada's NW territories are up to 4 BILLION years old, and haven't been recycled into the mantle yet, by pure chance. Lunar sample are up to 4.46 billion years old, indicating the impact that created the moon occurred early in Earth's formation. Crustal and geographic changes in the last 15k years? Non-existent. The land is the same, except perhaps directly in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and along the Ring of Fire, and a few other similar places. Sea level change is all that has changed. There's a fixed amount of water on the surface. An occasional comet impact or something similar doesn't alter it significantly. It only matters how much of it is liquid vs ice, when you're talking about how long humans have been around. That could be affected by a myriad of things...planetary orbits, solar output, atmospheric composition, etc. Right now we're kind of in a happy medium. That could change. Or maybe not. Regardless, geologic shifts don't play a part in it over the lifespan of humanity. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: To be fair, what you believe contradicts with what science thinks it knows about geology. You're talking about this subject like there's only a few thousand years of existence here, i.e. the world was created on October whatever in 4004 BC. It wasn't. It's been here for 4.5 billion years, and you are absolutely right in saying there have been multiple ice ages. Thousands of them. Hell, there have been periods where there was zero Ice, and also "snowball Earth's," when ice covered nearly everything except the tropics. Pangea existed hundreds of millions of years ago. And we can still see the outlines of the "puzzle piece" continents today. Before that? Rodinia, Columbia/Nuna, (1.2, 1.8 billion years ago) etc. So, when someone produces a map that shows what the elevations were 15,000 years ago, i.e. .0008% of that time ago, and .0003% of the Earth's age ago, it's a pretty damn good bet that map is accurate. The Earth changes, the continents drift, very slowly. Literally nothing significant has changed in 15,000 years except sea level rise. It absolutely IS an honest representation of what went on in the last major ice age. Absolutely. There was no writing system extant in Pangea, hundreds of millions of years ago, unless algae was writing. People have only been here for MAYBE a half million years. Hominids for 7 million. The dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Pangea was a distant memory by then. There are marine fossils on mountaintops because those lands were seas millions and millions of years ago, and continental drift and collisions raising mountains has lifted them to where they are now. It's why the Rockies are so much higher than the Appalachians, because they're younger and haven't been subjected to as long of a time frame of continental drift and erosion. You're thinking of this in terms of thousands of years. Start thinking of it in terms of millions, and billions of years. The Acasta gneiss in Canada's NW territories are up to 4 BILLION years old, and haven't been recycled into the mantle yet, by pure chance. Lunar sample are up to 4.46 billion years old, indicating the impact that created the moon occurred early in Earth's formation. Crustal and geographic changes in the last 15k years? Non-existent. The land is the same, except perhaps directly in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and along the Ring of Fire, and a few other similar places. Sea level change is all that has changed. There's a fixed amount of water on the surface. An occasional comet impact or something similar doesn't alter it significantly. It only matters how much of it is liquid vs ice, when you're talking about how long humans have been around. That could be affected by a myriad of things...planetary orbits, solar output, atmospheric composition, etc. Right now we're kind of in a happy medium. That could change. Or maybe not. Regardless, geologic shifts don't play a part in it over the lifespan of humanity. Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By brass: The problem I see with these maps is that while they give a good idea of where the ice was, they overlay it on current bodies of water and extents of oceans. With marine fossils found on top of ridges in Montana, there must have been many ice ages that have come and gone, in addition to a bunch of tectonic activity changing the shape of land in addition to depths and shapes of water. On that map, in addition to the idiot that made the color key scheme, I believe Siberia would have been covered with much more ice than that map is showing, unless I am reading it wrong. It is showing the lack of the Mediterranean and some other features changed, but it's still an artist rendition using a lot of today's geography as a starting point (which is sort of a requirement because we can't 100% for sure say what things looked like in the various ice ages). It has changed so much from a million years ago we cannot comprehend it, like the marine fossils in the Rocky Mountains. Some say it's all tectonic folding that moved the sea floor higher and I can agree with that and others say the water was that deep, but we don't know how high that bit of land was when the water was "that deep". The amount of water on Earth has been nearly constant, with some loss from it seeping up in the atmosphere and out to space, but a very tiny amount, same with nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and all the other light atmospheric elements. Water is pretty heavy and so it doesn't evaporate that quick (Side rant: Same story with the Coolants from Dow Chemical. Freon and other Chlorine coolants were simply too heavy to make it to the 10-30 mile altitudes and 'eat' ozone. They used that as an excuse to sell new coolant patents, though sitting in a room full of only freon probably isn't healthy, recovery of freon now done with vacuum pumps now nullifies all that anyway so why do they keep banning coolants and pushing new ones? Think about it....).. Ok, where was I... We don't have a map of what the world was like but we can make a damn good guess at least back to where South America tucks into Africa, Europe tucks into South America, Central America, and the US, and we end up with a very large land mass with absolutely no clue which dirt was ocean floor back then and which dirt held the ice and here the humans lived, and I think humans did live there, since if you tuck things together back to near Pangea, languages and writing systems start to make sense on why similar things are used 3000 miles apart today. In short, we can't use current maps and assumptions of where bodies of waters are to make definitive statements as to where water was before the ice age(s), so making maps over current oceans and bodies of water is not an honest representation of what was really going on during the major ice ages (we have a clue from the "mini ice ages" and cool periods but that is recent history compared to what sculpted our current maps). I think the climate change alarmists are intentionally misrepresenting the amounts of water and bodies of water filled with ice by putting ice sheets over a current map of the world. To be fair, what you believe contradicts with what science thinks it knows about geology. You're talking about this subject like there's only a few thousand years of existence here, i.e. the world was created on October whatever in 4004 BC. It wasn't. It's been here for 4.5 billion years, and you are absolutely right in saying there have been multiple ice ages. Thousands of them. Hell, there have been periods where there was zero Ice, and also "snowball Earth's," when ice covered nearly everything except the tropics. Pangea existed hundreds of millions of years ago. And we can still see the outlines of the "puzzle piece" continents today. Before that? Rodinia, Columbia/Nuna, (1.2, 1.8 billion years ago) etc. So, when someone produces a map that shows what the elevations were 15,000 years ago, i.e. .0008% of that time ago, and .0003% of the Earth's age ago, it's a pretty damn good bet that map is accurate. The Earth changes, the continents drift, very slowly. Literally nothing significant has changed in 15,000 years except sea level rise. It absolutely IS an honest representation of what went on in the last major ice age. Absolutely. There was no writing system extant in Pangea, hundreds of millions of years ago, unless algae was writing. People have only been here for MAYBE a half million years. Hominids for 7 million. The dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Pangea was a distant memory by then. There are marine fossils on mountaintops because those lands were seas millions and millions of years ago, and continental drift and collisions raising mountains has lifted them to where they are now. It's why the Rockies are so much higher than the Appalachians, because they're younger and haven't been subjected to as long of a time frame of continental drift and erosion. You're thinking of this in terms of thousands of years. Start thinking of it in terms of millions, and billions of years. The Acasta gneiss in Canada's NW territories are up to 4 BILLION years old, and haven't been recycled into the mantle yet, by pure chance. Lunar sample are up to 4.46 billion years old, indicating the impact that created the moon occurred early in Earth's formation. Crustal and geographic changes in the last 15k years? Non-existent. The land is the same, except perhaps directly in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and along the Ring of Fire, and a few other similar places. Sea level change is all that has changed. There's a fixed amount of water on the surface. An occasional comet impact or something similar doesn't alter it significantly. It only matters how much of it is liquid vs ice, when you're talking about how long humans have been around. That could be affected by a myriad of things...planetary orbits, solar output, atmospheric composition, etc. Right now we're kind of in a happy medium. That could change. Or maybe not. Regardless, geologic shifts don't play a part in it over the lifespan of humanity. I agree that the changes are a hell of a lot older and slower and that the Earth is millions of years old and we've only existed in this timeline (past 100k years?) as a blip in geologic time and trying to divine what the Earth and any life was like over 10k years ago is essentially guessing as everything from that time, metals, papers, linen, have all dissolved and we only know what was written on rocks in various locations.. When I am writing about "and then..", that's geologic time scales but where humans or precursors to humans potentially may have existed, but where we really can't know what the Earth looked like and where land and water was. I was more going with the fact that the amount of water on the earth is and has been fairly constant (within the volume of a Great Lake or so) and what is ocean, land, or ice has changed so much that the evidence geology is using cannot be 100% positive which eruption or tectonic movement lifted those ridges. We could have been at this tech level before and nearly all evidence of that has been subducted into the Magma of Earth and a new crust was formed with only a dozen people surviving, maybe named Adam and Eve as well as Jerry and Jennifer, but their names were too long to be passed down in the oral histories. I like the Geologists and love them with much respect when comparing them to archaeologists. If they would maybe talk to each other and get some true dating done we might know more (like if an item is 500k years old or 1 million years old), but there is also the "knowing more" is a dangerous path to go down, if you listen to the "strange stuff" talking heads on Disclosure, who know how many times they had to drop off fresh humans because the planet got all uppity. The "Earth is 6000 years old" line i s mostly from Egyptian archeologists and a few pretty out there churches (Westboro Baptist as an example) which are used to attack all religion and even spirituality. A very tiny thing to hold onto to criticize everything related to spirituality because of that fragment. Perhaps that is what I am doing with guesses, but the Pangea to now part is what made most of how we view Earth and I thin there's stuff from that epoch in Geologic time that is attributed to more recent age changes by people with agendas.. Man I am going way off the deep end on this topic (pun intended) |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: I agree that the changes are a hell of a lot older and slower and that the Earth is millions of years old and we've only existed in this timeline (past 100k years?) as a blip in geologic time and trying to divine what the Earth and any life was like over 10k years ago is essentially guessing as everything from that time, metals, papers, linen, have all dissolved and we only know what was written on rocks in various locations.. When I am writing about "and then..", that's geologic time scales but where humans or precursors to humans potentially may have existed, but where we really can't know what the Earth looked like and where land and water was. I was more going with the fact that the amount of water on the earth is and has been fairly constant (within the volume of a Great Lake or so) and what is ocean, land, or ice has changed so much that the evidence geology is using cannot be 100% positive which eruption or tectonic movement lifted those ridges. We could have been at this tech level before and nearly all evidence of that has been subducted into the Magma of Earth and a new crust was formed with only a dozen people surviving, maybe named Adam and Eve as well as Jerry and Jennifer, but their names were too long to be passed down in the oral histories. I like the Geologists and love them with much respect when comparing them to archaeologists. If they would maybe talk to each other and get some true dating done we might know more (like if an item is 500k years old or 1 million years old), but there is also the "knowing more" is a dangerous path to go down, if you listen to the "strange stuff" talking heads on Disclosure, who know how many times they had to drop off fresh humans because the planet got all uppity. The "Earth is 6000 years old" line i s mostly from Egyptian archeologists and a few pretty out there churches (Westboro Baptist as an example) which are used to attack all religion and even spirituality. A very tiny thing to hold onto to criticize everything related to spirituality because of that fragment. Perhaps that is what I am doing with guesses, but the Pangea to now part is what made most of how we view Earth and I thin there's stuff from that epoch in Geologic time that is attributed to more recent age changes by people with agendas.. Originally Posted By brass: I agree that the changes are a hell of a lot older and slower and that the Earth is millions of years old and we've only existed in this timeline (past 100k years?) as a blip in geologic time and trying to divine what the Earth and any life was like over 10k years ago is essentially guessing as everything from that time, metals, papers, linen, have all dissolved and we only know what was written on rocks in various locations.. When I am writing about "and then..", that's geologic time scales but where humans or precursors to humans potentially may have existed, but where we really can't know what the Earth looked like and where land and water was. I was more going with the fact that the amount of water on the earth is and has been fairly constant (within the volume of a Great Lake or so) and what is ocean, land, or ice has changed so much that the evidence geology is using cannot be 100% positive which eruption or tectonic movement lifted those ridges. We could have been at this tech level before and nearly all evidence of that has been subducted into the Magma of Earth and a new crust was formed with only a dozen people surviving, maybe named Adam and Eve as well as Jerry and Jennifer, but their names were too long to be passed down in the oral histories. I like the Geologists and love them with much respect when comparing them to archaeologists. If they would maybe talk to each other and get some true dating done we might know more (like if an item is 500k years old or 1 million years old), but there is also the "knowing more" is a dangerous path to go down, if you listen to the "strange stuff" talking heads on Disclosure, who know how many times they had to drop off fresh humans because the planet got all uppity. The "Earth is 6000 years old" line i s mostly from Egyptian archeologists and a few pretty out there churches (Westboro Baptist as an example) which are used to attack all religion and even spirituality. A very tiny thing to hold onto to criticize everything related to spirituality because of that fragment. Perhaps that is what I am doing with guesses, but the Pangea to now part is what made most of how we view Earth and I thin there's stuff from that epoch in Geologic time that is attributed to more recent age changes by people with agendas.. I think the point I'm arguing here is that you're wildly overestimating the amount of geologic change that happens in the time frame we're talking about, i.e. let's say the last 20,000 years. The Earth does change over that period of time, but those changes are tiny. Miniscule. The ground beneath a retreating glacier rebounds upward when the weight of the ice is removed...but the rate is millimeters per year (as measured by current instruments, because it's still happening). Undersea earthquakes and rockslides can cause local geographic markers to change. Look at the rockslide off of Norway that helped submerge what little remained of Doggerland. So, scientists can very much map the undersea floor to determine past elevations. They will have changed at best by inches and feet, not hundreds or thousands of feet over the time period. That, combined with other geology, i.e. the marks where water was, can give you a really accurate map of what the world looked like before sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. I did a lot of field work near the Salton Sea in SoCal. Hotels in Brawley, Indio, and those places. We could look at any hill around the area and see the high-water mark from ancient Lake Cahuilla. The basin filled with water and drained away to desert many times over the last 2000 years. It dried up for the last time sometime after 1580 AD, before refilling partially due to man's incompetence building the All-American Canal. We were finding V-shaped formations of rocks all over in the mesquite. They were fish traps, showing where the shore had been when people made them. We know what the world looked like in recent geologic times, the 20,000 years we're speculating on. Geologists aren't just imagining it. You're absolutely right that anything made by people (beyond, say the megalithic structures submerged near the coast of France, i.e. what this topic started as) is 100% gone. It's been submerged for 10,000+ years. A flaked stone tool would still exist, but would be buried under sea mud, sea life, and water to the point it will never be seen again. It's a non-zero chance, but a very safe bet against, that any previous culture was at or near anything resembling our tech level. Imagine a catastrophe today wiping out 99% of humanity and raising the sea levels by 230 feet (all the ice melting). 20,000 years from now there would still be evidence everywhere you looked that our society had existed. Everywhere. It's the blink of an eye geologically speaking. To posit, as Hancock and others do, that "there was an advanced civilization 20,000 years ago, but they never built or made anything beyond a few miles from the then-existing coast, so it's all gone now due to the sea level rise" is disingenuous at best, an outright lie to make cash at worst. It's easy to believe that some group somewhere developed beyond their neighboring cultures, i.e. they started agriculture and megalithic building first before losing everything to rapidly rising waters and having to emigrate to other areas. But those theorists always take things way too far when they start talking about "potential levels of advancement." As far as more accurate geologic dating techniques, trust me, they talk. They hold entire conferences on the subject. Potassium-argon dating, uranium-thorium dating, luminescence dating, electron-spin resonance dating, uranium-lead dating, and a host of others can give you reasonably definitive dates far beyond the relative dating techniques, i.e. this layer is under that layer, so it's older. When you combine the two, you get accurate dates. As an example, uranium-thorium dating done with mass spectroscopy can yield +/- 1% accuracy. You're still talking about samples that are hundreds of thousands of years old, so 1% is thousands of years, but that's pretty damn good. For samples of the proper ages, you can use multiple of the mentioned methods to get even better accuracy. Unless, of course, we just decide that said science is woo and can be ignored.  Man I am going way off the deep end on this topic (pun intended) We really are. I love it. 
|
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: I think the point I'm arguing here is that you're wildly overestimating the amount of geologic change that happens in the time frame we're talking about, i.e. let's say the last 20,000 years. The Earth does change over that period of time, but those changes are tiny. Miniscule. The ground beneath a retreating glacier rebounds upward when the weight of the ice is removed...but the rate is millimeters per year (as measured by current instruments, because it's still happening). Undersea earthquakes and rockslides can cause local geographic markers to change. Look at the rockslide off of Norway that helped submerge what little remained of Doggerland. So, scientists can very much map the undersea floor to determine past elevations. They will have changed at best by inches and feet, not hundreds or thousands of feet over the time period. That, combined with other geology, i.e. the marks where water was, can give you a really accurate map of what the world looked like before sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. I did a lot of field work near the Salton Sea in SoCal. Hotels in Brawley, Indio, and those places. We could look at any hill around the area and see the high-water mark from ancient Lake Cahuilla. The basin filled with water and drained away to desert many times over the last 2000 years. It dried up for the last time sometime after 1580 AD, before refilling partially due to man's incompetence building the All-American Canal. We were finding V-shaped formations of rocks all over in the mesquite. They were fish traps, showing where the shore had been when people made them. We know what the world looked like in recent geologic times, the 20,000 years we're speculating on. Geologists aren't just imagining it. You're absolutely right that anything made by people (beyond, say the megalithic structures submerged near the coast of France, i.e. what this topic started as) is 100% gone. It's been submerged for 10,000+ years. A flaked stone tool would still exist, but would be buried under sea mud, sea life, and water to the point it will never be seen again. It's a non-zero chance, but a very safe bet against, that any previous culture was at or near anything resembling our tech level. Imagine a catastrophe today wiping out 99% of humanity and raising the sea levels by 230 feet (all the ice melting). 20,000 years from now there would still be evidence everywhere you looked that our society had existed. Everywhere. It's the blink of an eye geologically speaking. To posit, as Hancock and others do, that "there was an advanced civilization 20,000 years ago, but they never built or made anything beyond a few miles from the then-existing coast, so it's all gone now due to the sea level rise" is disingenuous at best, an outright lie to make cash at worst. It's easy to believe that some group somewhere developed beyond their neighboring cultures, i.e. they started agriculture and megalithic building first before losing everything to rapidly rising waters and having to emigrate to other areas. But those theorists always take things way too far when they start talking about "potential levels of advancement." As far as more accurate geologic dating techniques, trust me, they talk. They hold entire conferences on the subject. Potassium-argon dating, uranium-thorium dating, luminescence dating, electron-spin resonance dating, uranium-lead dating, and a host of others can give you reasonably definitive dates far beyond the relative dating techniques, i.e. this layer is under that layer, so it's older. When you combine the two, you get accurate dates. As an example, uranium-thorium dating done with mass spectroscopy can yield +/- 1% accuracy. You're still talking about samples that are hundreds of thousands of years old, so 1% is thousands of years, but that's pretty damn good. For samples of the proper ages, you can use multiple of the mentioned methods to get even better accuracy. Unless, of course, we just decide that said science is woo and can be ignored. We really are. I love it. Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By brass: I agree that the changes are a hell of a lot older and slower and that the Earth is millions of years old and we've only existed in this timeline (past 100k years?) as a blip in geologic time and trying to divine what the Earth and any life was like over 10k years ago is essentially guessing as everything from that time, metals, papers, linen, have all dissolved and we only know what was written on rocks in various locations.. When I am writing about "and then..", that's geologic time scales but where humans or precursors to humans potentially may have existed, but where we really can't know what the Earth looked like and where land and water was. I was more going with the fact that the amount of water on the earth is and has been fairly constant (within the volume of a Great Lake or so) and what is ocean, land, or ice has changed so much that the evidence geology is using cannot be 100% positive which eruption or tectonic movement lifted those ridges. We could have been at this tech level before and nearly all evidence of that has been subducted into the Magma of Earth and a new crust was formed with only a dozen people surviving, maybe named Adam and Eve as well as Jerry and Jennifer, but their names were too long to be passed down in the oral histories. I like the Geologists and love them with much respect when comparing them to archaeologists. If they would maybe talk to each other and get some true dating done we might know more (like if an item is 500k years old or 1 million years old), but there is also the "knowing more" is a dangerous path to go down, if you listen to the "strange stuff" talking heads on Disclosure, who know how many times they had to drop off fresh humans because the planet got all uppity. The "Earth is 6000 years old" line i s mostly from Egyptian archeologists and a few pretty out there churches (Westboro Baptist as an example) which are used to attack all religion and even spirituality. A very tiny thing to hold onto to criticize everything related to spirituality because of that fragment. Perhaps that is what I am doing with guesses, but the Pangea to now part is what made most of how we view Earth and I thin there's stuff from that epoch in Geologic time that is attributed to more recent age changes by people with agendas.. I think the point I'm arguing here is that you're wildly overestimating the amount of geologic change that happens in the time frame we're talking about, i.e. let's say the last 20,000 years. The Earth does change over that period of time, but those changes are tiny. Miniscule. The ground beneath a retreating glacier rebounds upward when the weight of the ice is removed...but the rate is millimeters per year (as measured by current instruments, because it's still happening). Undersea earthquakes and rockslides can cause local geographic markers to change. Look at the rockslide off of Norway that helped submerge what little remained of Doggerland. So, scientists can very much map the undersea floor to determine past elevations. They will have changed at best by inches and feet, not hundreds or thousands of feet over the time period. That, combined with other geology, i.e. the marks where water was, can give you a really accurate map of what the world looked like before sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. I did a lot of field work near the Salton Sea in SoCal. Hotels in Brawley, Indio, and those places. We could look at any hill around the area and see the high-water mark from ancient Lake Cahuilla. The basin filled with water and drained away to desert many times over the last 2000 years. It dried up for the last time sometime after 1580 AD, before refilling partially due to man's incompetence building the All-American Canal. We were finding V-shaped formations of rocks all over in the mesquite. They were fish traps, showing where the shore had been when people made them. We know what the world looked like in recent geologic times, the 20,000 years we're speculating on. Geologists aren't just imagining it. You're absolutely right that anything made by people (beyond, say the megalithic structures submerged near the coast of France, i.e. what this topic started as) is 100% gone. It's been submerged for 10,000+ years. A flaked stone tool would still exist, but would be buried under sea mud, sea life, and water to the point it will never be seen again. It's a non-zero chance, but a very safe bet against, that any previous culture was at or near anything resembling our tech level. Imagine a catastrophe today wiping out 99% of humanity and raising the sea levels by 230 feet (all the ice melting). 20,000 years from now there would still be evidence everywhere you looked that our society had existed. Everywhere. It's the blink of an eye geologically speaking. To posit, as Hancock and others do, that "there was an advanced civilization 20,000 years ago, but they never built or made anything beyond a few miles from the then-existing coast, so it's all gone now due to the sea level rise" is disingenuous at best, an outright lie to make cash at worst. It's easy to believe that some group somewhere developed beyond their neighboring cultures, i.e. they started agriculture and megalithic building first before losing everything to rapidly rising waters and having to emigrate to other areas. But those theorists always take things way too far when they start talking about "potential levels of advancement." As far as more accurate geologic dating techniques, trust me, they talk. They hold entire conferences on the subject. Potassium-argon dating, uranium-thorium dating, luminescence dating, electron-spin resonance dating, uranium-lead dating, and a host of others can give you reasonably definitive dates far beyond the relative dating techniques, i.e. this layer is under that layer, so it's older. When you combine the two, you get accurate dates. As an example, uranium-thorium dating done with mass spectroscopy can yield +/- 1% accuracy. You're still talking about samples that are hundreds of thousands of years old, so 1% is thousands of years, but that's pretty damn good. For samples of the proper ages, you can use multiple of the mentioned methods to get even better accuracy. Unless, of course, we just decide that said science is woo and can be ignored. Man I am going way off the deep end on this topic (pun intended) We really are. I love it. I think I am being unspecific. I don't think the Mediterranean was made in the past 20k years or any elevation changes of the Rocky Mountains. I am merging the breaking up of Pangea with "Flood Myths" which could be well over 10k years ago, and possibly longer and even repetitive. To people that lived near large bodies of water (majority) can't see the ice sheets (thus seen as Divine punishment). I'm slapping long term geology with recent (written history) changes. The changes are what I am pointing at rather than direct alignment, with the "amount of water fairly constant" position, so land/groundwater, lake/ocean, and ice distribution is what changes and we can't lay those changes on a current map of the world. That's not all in the past 6k or even 10k years though one at the 12k year ago mark that so many other events point to, though some of it is, I'm just kind of mashing it together to get concept kind of made while confusing the hell out of people it seems. Stonehenge, as an example, would have been bowled over by a glacier if pointing at that recent of major ice age. When bringing groundwater into this, that changes things a lot since we have no idea what it historically was (prior to drilling deep wells) and much of that won't freeze as geothermal keeps it there and it does fill up and empty, similar to Lake Mead where they let out water for electricity and pump water to other areas and then when they see they're running out of water they scream "climate change!!!". I remember taking photos of it in 2004 when it was pretty near full, and as soon as they saw that, they started dumping it like a lottery winner throwing cash around until it was low again when they screamed "climate change!!". It's all so tiring. Climate does change, the Earth is not static no matter how much the environmentalists want it to be frozen (heh heh heh, locked state, I mean of course), though I would like to ask what the "correct" distribution of water and temperature is for the Earth since they seem to know it is wrong right now. I have noticed that climate change seems more severe with proximity to California, in addition to omnicancerous substances. How to lie with stats - Scale zooming without pointing it out, but really, just shows how it was refilling and as soon as that was noticed, they started pulling water like a lottery winner throwing cash around. There's still another 100 ft of usable water below the bottom of this graph, though the storage is drastically damaged at the time and they've pretty much held it around the 1070ft line since this graph with some excursions. 
|
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: How to lie with stats - Scale zooming without pointing it out, but really, just shows how it was refilling and as soon as that was noticed, they started pulling water like a lottery winner throwing cash around. There's still another 100 ft of usable water below the bottom of this graph, though the storage is drastically damaged at the time and they've pretty much held it around the 1070ft line since this graph with some excursions. Well, to quote Homer Simpson, "Oh, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that." |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. 40 meters / 125 feet covers a lot of early sites And the Climate Change Fundamentalists are hysterical over 2”. 
|
Call the tune and let's dance; but beware that the devil is the piper and the tab for that soiree will be hell to pay.
Training&Trigger Time are more important than chasing a hardware Holy Grail
Training&Trigger Time are more important than chasing a hardware Holy Grail
|
Originally Posted By brass: Where did all that water come from? All of the North Pole and parts of Antarctica is just ice floating on the ocean, so when it melts, the water level won't change. Think about your drink, when the ice melts, your glass doesn't suddenly overflow. The only water locked up is mostly on top of Greenland and on Antarctica, with the expansion of water as it freezes, there's not as much water hanging out as those miles of ice, either. There is a bit in Glaciers remaining in mountainous areas, but they're not going to flash into water without humans having severe issues from other aspects from that heat (More than A Solar maximum as seen in tree/ice cores). Did some aliens come by with tankers and dump some petagallons of water on Earth and then after a while come and take it back? Just the ice on Greenland and Antarctica doesn't explain it. Antarctica was probably ice free when the Northern Hemisphere (Canada/US) were covered by glaciers, though they weren't as many miles deep, they were expansive, and they melted and that water then froze on Antarctica is my theory. It's just moving around and there's not enough to submerge much more than is currently submerged, we're at an oceanic high point, judging from all the things found offshore in 20-100 ft of water on continental shelves. Originally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Where did all that water come from? All of the North Pole and parts of Antarctica is just ice floating on the ocean, so when it melts, the water level won't change. Think about your drink, when the ice melts, your glass doesn't suddenly overflow. The only water locked up is mostly on top of Greenland and on Antarctica, with the expansion of water as it freezes, there's not as much water hanging out as those miles of ice, either. There is a bit in Glaciers remaining in mountainous areas, but they're not going to flash into water without humans having severe issues from other aspects from that heat (More than A Solar maximum as seen in tree/ice cores). Did some aliens come by with tankers and dump some petagallons of water on Earth and then after a while come and take it back? Just the ice on Greenland and Antarctica doesn't explain it. Antarctica was probably ice free when the Northern Hemisphere (Canada/US) were covered by glaciers, though they weren't as many miles deep, they were expansive, and they melted and that water then froze on Antarctica is my theory. It's just moving around and there's not enough to submerge much more than is currently submerged, we're at an oceanic high point, judging from all the things found offshore in 20-100 ft of water on continental shelves. Most of the civilization was submerged under the sea because it was on the coasts just like todays civilization and is mostly go un-noticed until something like the structure off the coast of france or structures in Turkey and then people go huh? where did that come from. |
Mach
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
|
I think some people here are getting confused about time periods and when things happened. The last ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, since then the earth has in general warmed, though there were a few times when it started getting colder too, it's not just a straight line on a temperature graph, there have been peaks and valleys during the warming trend. Coal beds, and the fossils in them, mostly were laid down during the Carboniferous Period, 360-300 million years ago, far longer back than the last ice age, it was before mammals or dinosaurs even evolved. Same with marine fossil found in Montana's mountains, the Western Interior Seaway existed from 100-66 million years ago, again long, long before the ice age happenings being discussed. |
|
Originally Posted By engineer61: I think some people here are getting confused about time periods and when things happened. The last ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, since then the earth has in general warmed, though there were a few times when it started getting colder too, it's not just a straight line on a temperature graph, there have been peaks and valleys during the warming trend. Coal beds, and the fossils in them, mostly were laid down during the Carboniferous Period, 360-300 million years ago, far longer back than the last ice age, it was before mammals or dinosaurs even evolved. Same with marine fossil found in Montana's mountains, the Western Interior Seaway existed from 100-66 million years ago, again long, long before the ice age happenings being discussed. I'm not confused. But thank you for clarifying.
|
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Mach: there were miles thick glaciers on land all over North America and Europe that carved the earth when it melted and all that melt went into the ocean and raised sea levels 300-400 feet. Most of the civilization was submerged under the sea because it was on the coasts just like todays civilization and is mostly go un-noticed until something like the structure off the coast of france or structures in Turkey and then people go huh? where did that come from. Originally Posted By Mach: Originally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By gtsteve03: I think the scale of sea level rise after the last Ice Age is a bit hard for most people to grasp. People naturally gather near bodies of water. There will be sunken ancient ruins all over the globe being found for awhile. Exactly. By some estimates, sea levels rose 400 feet. A geology professor told me a long time ago that most shorelines slope at 100:1, so you'd lose 40,000 feet (7+ miles) of shoreline across the world, or literally all of it if your elevation was less than the rise (see: Doggerland). It why Hancock's (and others) theory of a more advanced maritime civilization disappearing and dispersing over the world to bring "enlightenment" (i.e. agriculture, writing, etc.) to other cultures isn't far-fetched. Unfortunately any real proof beyond some submerged structures here and there has been under 400' of water for 12,000 years, and is gone. Which is very convenient for Mr. Hancock. Where did all that water come from? All of the North Pole and parts of Antarctica is just ice floating on the ocean, so when it melts, the water level won't change. Think about your drink, when the ice melts, your glass doesn't suddenly overflow. The only water locked up is mostly on top of Greenland and on Antarctica, with the expansion of water as it freezes, there's not as much water hanging out as those miles of ice, either. There is a bit in Glaciers remaining in mountainous areas, but they're not going to flash into water without humans having severe issues from other aspects from that heat (More than A Solar maximum as seen in tree/ice cores). Did some aliens come by with tankers and dump some petagallons of water on Earth and then after a while come and take it back? Just the ice on Greenland and Antarctica doesn't explain it. Antarctica was probably ice free when the Northern Hemisphere (Canada/US) were covered by glaciers, though they weren't as many miles deep, they were expansive, and they melted and that water then froze on Antarctica is my theory. It's just moving around and there's not enough to submerge much more than is currently submerged, we're at an oceanic high point, judging from all the things found offshore in 20-100 ft of water on continental shelves. Most of the civilization was submerged under the sea because it was on the coasts just like todays civilization and is mostly go un-noticed until something like the structure off the coast of france or structures in Turkey and then people go huh? where did that come from. I agree the water levels and ice levels have varied rather extremely, maybe ±5000 ft at extents, some extremes via the land moving or being subducted or pushed up as the rockies were and so forth. When asking for the source, we have oddities like the Cosco artifact, an allegedly 500,000 year old geode with a Model T spark plug embedded and has been examined many times by many, many people and have concluded it is not a fraud/fake. That is a wrench in the works of all these topics for me. and that isn't the only one, there's another OOP (out of place artifact) in a coal mine in PA I think which they left to examine instead of digging out. There are dozens, here's a list of OOPs which fascinate me as they are glitches in the matrix indicating things are not what they seem, in our time or in previous times/epochs. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: I agree the water levels and ice levels have varied rather extremely, maybe ±5000 ft at extents, some extremes via the land moving or being subducted or pushed up as the rockies were and so forth. When asking for the source, we have oddities like the Cosco artifact, an allegedly 500,000 year old geode with a Model T spark plug embedded and has been examined many times by many, many people and have concluded it is not a fraud/fake. That is a wrench in the works of all these topics for me. and that isn't the only one, there's another OOP (out of place artifact) in a coal mine in PA I think which they left to examine instead of digging out. There are dozens, here's a list of OOPs which fascinate me as they are glitches in the matrix indicating things are not what they seem, in our time or in previous times/epochs. Well, no one, including me, can argue with you about the variety of "OOP artifacts." Either you believe them to be so, or you accept the other explanations of them. There's no point into going down that rabbit hole, because it's unlikely anyone here is going to change their minds. Myself included, close-minded though that may be. |
Pope Gregorius Billingsgate Callipygian Quimtickler, First of His Name
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
Chakravartin of the Feculent Multiversal Litterbox
Protodeacon of the Iniquitous
Gurkhan of the Illimitable Feline Hordes
|
Originally Posted By Kagetora: Well, no one, including me, can argue with you about the variety of "OOP artifacts." Either you believe them to be so, or you accept the other explanations of them. There's no point into going down that rabbit hole, because it's unlikely anyone here is going to change their minds. Myself included, close-minded though that may be. Originally Posted By Kagetora: Originally Posted By brass: I agree the water levels and ice levels have varied rather extremely, maybe ±5000 ft at extents, some extremes via the land moving or being subducted or pushed up as the rockies were and so forth. When asking for the source, we have oddities like the Cosco artifact, an allegedly 500,000 year old geode with a Model T spark plug embedded and has been examined many times by many, many people and have concluded it is not a fraud/fake. That is a wrench in the works of all these topics for me. and that isn't the only one, there's another OOP (out of place artifact) in a coal mine in PA I think which they left to examine instead of digging out. There are dozens, here's a list of OOPs which fascinate me as they are glitches in the matrix indicating things are not what they seem, in our time or in previous times/epochs. Well, no one, including me, can argue with you about the variety of "OOP artifacts." Either you believe them to be so, or you accept the other explanations of them. There's no point into going down that rabbit hole, because it's unlikely anyone here is going to change their minds. Myself included, close-minded though that may be. Not trying to change any minds at all. I learn a lot from your posts, I just have been kind of connecting the dots from the sparse bits I've learned on geology which is something I prefer far more than the topic of archaeology (which has a bunch of bastards) and I get everything mixed up and totally misunderstood when trying to actually combine the two, hence my totally split and radically shotgun understanding of both. 
|
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.