Perhaps Ice-Age Ended in 7500 BC
Srinivas
et al) discovered a 9500 year old civilization off the coast of
northern, central turkey in the black sea.
just last week, some indian scientists discovered another civilization
off the coast of western india, which also dates to 9500 years old.
my opinion: perhaps when the glaciers melted away, the sea-levels
rose engulfing the civilizations.
what are your questions/comments?
>
> The Department of Ocean Development has recovered a number of ancient
> artefacts in the Gulf of Cambay. The discovery may turn the clock on
> the beginnings of human civilisation by a few thousand years. The site
> precedes the Harappan Civilisation by about 3,000 years.
> But Union HRD and Science and Technology Minister Murli Manohar Joshi
> had a word of caution. He said "more critical examination" was
> necessary.
>
> A block of wood had been found among the artefacts, which were cut in
> such a manner that proved human intervention.
>
> The Carbon dating on it by two independent institutes, the Birbal
> Sahni Palaeobotany Institute and the National Geophysical Research
> Institute, had put its date at 7,500 BC, he said.
>
> Found close to the bank of a now non-existent river, it is for the
> first time a civilisation of this antiquity had been discovered in the
> Gulf of Cambay, he said.
>
> He announced that a National project would soon taken up full scale
> research on the site which would include teams and pool resources from
> the National Institute of Ocean Technology, National Institute of
> Oceanography, Archaeological Survey of India, Physical Research
> Laboratory, Birbal Sahni Paleobotany Institute, National Geophysical
> Research Institute and specialists from different Universities.
>
> The statement of Dr B Sasisekaran, Research Associate in National
> Science Academy, circulated to the media said, "The Carbon-14 date of
> 7,500 obtained for the wooden piece… changes the earlier held
> view that the first cities appeared in horizon around 3,500 BC.
>
> Some of the artefacts displayed were fossilised jaw bone and human
> tooth.
>
> According to experts, thin red pieces of pottery embedded in the local
> material appear to be from the kiln as there are burnt pieces of wood.
>
> This type of pottery is unknown and appears to be forerunner for the
> later civilisation. The thermo luminescence dating will give an idea
> of the period in which they were made and thus the period of the
> civilisation.
>
> There are quite a few rock and mortar like objects with figures
> resembling a lady, deer head and a duck. Crescent shaped objects and a
> cross, which is considered an expression of Mother goddess by some of
> the arcdhaeologists, were also collected. Harappans also made similar
> figurines in terracotta, bronze.
>
> Former Joint Director and Head of Department of Archaeology of Deccan
> College, S N Rajguru said though there was evidence of the existence
> of man in that area more than 2 lakh years ago and also of Harappan
> site around 5,000 BC, the present finding tells us what was happening
> in between.
Doug Weller
rateof...@hotmail.com says...
> last year, in the spring, one scientist from u. pennsylvania (ballard
> et al) discovered a 9500 year old civilization off the coast of
> northern, central turkey in the black sea.
I think you've got this very wrong. Ballard's work suggests noth8ing back this
far.
> just last week, some indian scientists discovered another civilization
> off the coast of western india, which also dates to 9500 years old.
The discovery was last May. There is a piece of wood which has been dated to
both 7500 BC and 6500 BC, but that isn't the same as dating whatever has been
found there, which is still in question.
>
> my opinion: perhaps when the glaciers melted away, the sea-levels
> rose engulfing the civilizations.
>
> what are your questions/comments?
That at the moment, neither of these areas shows evidence of cities that can be
dated that far back.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Hammerstad
> last year, in the spring, one scientist from u. pennsylvania (ballard
> et al) discovered a 9500 year old civilization off the coast of
> northern, central turkey in the black sea.
Presumably the Ballard you refer to is the one famous for his find of the
Titanic. I do no believe he is at u.pennsyvania though (used to be at Woods
Whole). From the Black Sea his expedition brough up a piece of wood for
dating, but unfortunately it was of recent origin. If you have a reference
for the quoted date, please post it.
>
> just last week, some indian scientists discovered another civilization
> off the coast of western india, which also dates to 9500 years old.
>
> my opinion: perhaps when the glaciers melted away, the sea-levels
> rose engulfing the civilizations.
Yes, see for example http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/gornitz_01/
which quotes the rise as 120 m. Most of the rise was from about 6000 to
12000 years ago.
>
>
> what are your questions/comments?
The below quote is very interesting, where did you find it? Whether this
could be the oldest site depends on two things, that the age is right, and
what is the minimum size of a settlement to define it as a city. Jericho and
other Fertile Crescent settlements are about 10000 years old or so.
mark...@io.com
rateof...@hotmail.com (Srinivas) wrote:
> Perhaps Ice-Age Ended in 7500 BC
you are correct in that after the ice age, the temperature continued to
climb until about 5000bc. the time from 5000bc to now is "the climatic
optimum" during which temperature has remained relatively more
constant.
humans tend to live near water, so rising sea levels could be expected
to cover many neolithic settlements.
john thrum
news:db6703fe.02012...@posting.google.com...
> snip
> my opinion: perhaps when the glaciers melted away, the sea-levels
> rose engulfing the civilizations.
>
> what are your questions/comments?
>
While I have no doubt there were human settlements that were inundated
by the rising sea levels, I would hesitate to use the word
"civilization". I think that word is overused even in reference to
some of the later cultures that built large stone monuments. To me, a
civilization is a culture with a high degree of technological
achievement, a sophisticated system of laws, and strong scientific
and political establishments that are largely free from influence by
religious zealots.
Just being able to pile up pretty rocks does not make a people a
civilization.
john thrum
Devadatta Mukutmoni
Srinivas <rateof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>my opinion: perhaps when the glaciers melted away, the sea-levels
>rose engulfing the civilizations.
>
>what are your questions/comments?
The exact date is not known, but the phenomenon has been proved
beyond doubt.
The sea level rose dramatically after the last ice age and submerged
huge land areas (a total of 15 Million square miles according to
Hancock). For instance the Bering land bridge got submerged as did
the Sunda (Sp?), the sea separating Indonesia from the rest of Asia.
England was not an Island before the melting.
The sea levels is supposed to have risen by 200 feet, a scary amount.
Gilgamesh
news:5mo38.4701$ag5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Srinivas" <rateof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:db6703fe.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > snip
> > my opinion: perhaps when the glaciers melted away, the sea-levels
> > rose engulfing the civilizations.
> >
> > what are your questions/comments?
> >
>
> While I have no doubt there were human settlements that were inundated
> by the rising sea levels, I would hesitate to use the word
> "civilization". I think that word is overused even in reference to
> some of the later cultures that built large stone monuments. To me, a
> civilization is a culture with a high degree of technological
> achievement, a sophisticated system of laws, and strong scientific
> and political establishments that are largely free from influence by
> religious zealots.
So in your opinion there have been no civilisations on Earth at any point in
time to date. :-)
Mike Cleven
john thrum wrote:
>
> "Srinivas" <rateof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:db6703fe.02012...@posting.google.com...
> > snip
> > my opinion: perhaps when the glaciers melted away, the sea-levels
> > rose engulfing the civilizations.
> >
> > what are your questions/comments?
> >
>
> While I have no doubt there were human settlements that were inundated
> by the rising sea levels, I would hesitate to use the word
> "civilization". I think that word is overused even in reference to
> some of the later cultures that built large stone monuments. To me, a
> civilization is a culture with a high degree of technological
> achievement, a sophisticated system of laws, and strong scientific
> and political establishments that are largely free from influence by
> religious zealots.
That's an odd definition, considering most of the major early
civilizations (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus) _were_ founded and run by
"religious zealots".....
>
> Just being able to pile up pretty rocks does not make a people a
> civilization.
Aw.
MC
Mike Cleven
In my part of the world, because of subsidence-zone movement, it was 300
ft.... (British Columbia/PacNW)
MC
Inger E
"Mike Cleven" <iro...@bigfoot.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C4DC56E...@bigfoot.com...
In the North Sea - eastern Atlantic the sealevel rised approx. 150 metres.
Inger E
Tapio
news:fmv38.16589$l93.3...@newsb.telia.net:
> In the North Sea - eastern Atlantic the sealevel rised approx. 150
> metres.
Didn't the sea-level rise the same all over the world?
--
Tapsa
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."
Marx
Srinivas
phase". therefore, all this hype about greenhouse gases and global
warming is going to occur whether we can help it or not.
NOTE: i'm just postulating this!
Doug Weller
rateof...@hotmail.com says...
> perhaps we're going through the opposite of an ice age now - a "watery
> phase". therefore, all this hype about greenhouse gases and global
> warming is going to occur whether we can help it or not.
>
of thickening?
Harald Henkel
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.16b8fe1a8...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <db6703fe.02012...@posting.google.com>,
> rateof...@hotmail.com says...
> > perhaps we're going through the opposite of an ice age now - a "watery
> > phase". therefore, all this hype about greenhouse gases and global
> > warming is going to occur whether we can help it or not.
> >
> Isn't the ice in the Antarctic thaw slowing down? The ice there showing
signs
> of thickening?
>
> http://www.polarnews.com/
Hello Doug.
I didn't read that linked page, but as far as I know - from an article in
Spektrum der Wissenschaft (German edition of Scientific American) - it is
not that simple. Whatever happens at the Antarctic and Greenland is not a
good sign regarding green house effect etc.
With kind regards,
Harald Henkel
Mike Cleven
Tapio wrote:
>
> "Inger E" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in
> news:fmv38.16589$l93.3...@newsb.telia.net:
>
> > In the North Sea - eastern Atlantic the sealevel rised approx. 150
> > metres.
>
> Didn't the sea-level rise the same all over the world?
No; because of isostatic rebound and other movements of the crust; in BC
there's a plate-subduction zone, meaning that both Pacific and
Cordilleran/NorthAm plates are being sucked into the mantle, so at the
same time the water was rising there was a downward movement of the
sea-bottom; and the weight of the Cordilleran icecap(s) was not so great
as the Scandinavian icesheet, meaning that the isostatic rebound in that
region would be less as well....
MC
Mike Cleven
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <db6703fe.02012...@posting.google.com>,
> rateof...@hotmail.com says...
> > perhaps we're going through the opposite of an ice age now - a "watery
> > phase". therefore, all this hype about greenhouse gases and global
> > warming is going to occur whether we can help it or not.
> >
> Isn't the ice in the Antarctic thaw slowing down? The ice there showing signs
> of thickening?
No; not thickening I think - haven't heard that anyway; but areas of the
Antarctic _are_ getting colder; there's still chunks of ice breaking
off, y'see. But isolated colder areas do not equate to overall global
warming; the "temperature" of the atmosphere is a question of total
kinetic energy and differentials between extremes of heat and pressure;
this means that as the system gets "warmer" the extremes of heat and
cold can increase, either across the board or from point to point.
MC
john thrum
news:3c4e6c2c$0$17695$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> snip
> So in your opinion there have been no civilisations on Earth at any
point in
> time to date. :-)
>
Au Contraire. Rome was a civilization. So was Egypt, Greece,
Byzantium, . . . Notice I said "largely free". A government has to
be largely free from religious zealotry in order to work. Certainly,
they all follow some outward form of religion, in order to maintain
control of the people. But the government itself has to be able to
ignore the fanatics for the most part in order to build a "civilized"
society. In my opinion, a civilization cannot exist unless its people
are free for the most part to pursue their own interests, and are able
to engage in activities such as commerce, education, fair and
equitable law enforcement, agriculture, etc. with little or no
hindrance.
Afghanistan was not a civilization under the Taliban. It was a
theocracy. No theocracy could ever be a civilization unless its
beliefs coincided with the conditions outlined above. Obviously the
Taliban did not.
Egypt could have been considered a Theocracy, I suppose. But Egypt
was a civilization because religion was used as a focal point for
society, rather than as an instrument of oppresion.
john thrum
Mike Cleven
john thrum wrote:
>
> "Gilgamesh" <gilg...@you.cant.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4e6c2c$0$17695$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > snip
> > So in your opinion there have been no civilisations on Earth at any
> point in
> > time to date. :-)
> >
>
> Au Contraire. Rome was a civilization. So was Egypt, Greece,
> Byzantium, . . . Notice I said "largely free". A government has to
> be largely free from religious zealotry in order to work. Certainly,
> they all follow some outward form of religion, in order to maintain
> control of the people. But the government itself has to be able to
> ignore the fanatics for the most part in order to build a "civilized"
> society. In my opinion, a civilization cannot exist unless its people
> are free for the most part to pursue their own interests, and are able
> to engage in activities such as commerce, education, fair and
> equitable law enforcement, agriculture, etc. with little or no
> hindrance.
>
> Afghanistan was not a civilization under the Taliban. It was a
> theocracy. No theocracy could ever be a civilization unless its
> beliefs coincided with the conditions outlined above. Obviously the
> Taliban did not.
Sort of disqualifies Babylon under the Laws of Hammurabi, then, doesn't
it?
>
> Egypt could have been considered a Theocracy, I suppose. But Egypt
> was a civilization because religion was used as a focal point for
> society, rather than as an instrument of oppresion.
You mean like Christendom from about 350AD through to the
Counter-Reformation? And, in certain countries, still now?
MC
Tapio
news:3C4EAEF5...@bigfoot.com:
>> Didn't the sea-level rise the same all over the world?
>
> No; because of isostatic rebound and other movements of the crust; in BC
> there's a plate-subduction zone, meaning that both Pacific and
> Cordilleran/NorthAm plates are being sucked into the mantle, so at the
> same time the water was rising there was a downward movement of the
> sea-bottom; and the weight of the Cordilleran icecap(s) was not so great
> as the Scandinavian icesheet, meaning that the isostatic rebound in that
> region would be less as well....
I refuse to believe that the rising of the land could be rapid enough to
counteract the rising of the sea-level or to make a difference to the
people living back then. Paticularly when the melting seems to have
occurred over just a few decades.
Gilgamesh
> "Gilgamesh" <gilg...@you.cant.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4e6c2c$0$17695$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > snip
> > So in your opinion there have been no civilisations on Earth at any
> point in
> > time to date. :-)
> >
>
> Au Contraire. Rome was a civilization. So was Egypt, Greece,
> Byzantium, . . . Notice I said "largely free". A government has to
Yes I did notice that but then we get down to a definition of what largely
is.
It is very subjective and open to debate.
In my opinion no culture has been largely free of religious zealotry.
Even today in the "Great Democracy" of the USA it is not largly free and
therefore is not a civilisation under your rules. The evidence I put
forward for this is that they still print "In God we trust" on all their
money and how the polititions cave in quickly when christian groups try to
get things they believe as immoral outlawed. :-)
You could correctly point out that they cave in simply to buy votes but it
is still bowing to zealot preasure.
Inger E
"Tapio" <h...@lop.sop> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns91A058A6...@195.197.54.114...
Tapsa,
if you can reas Swedish than you can look at
http://www.jip.se/Ytor1.html
there you see that around 9000 BC the landrise was approximate 10 metres/100
years and you can read about the landrise, Ice Coat melting etc in short
text.(It's more complicated). If you can't read Swedish you can take a look
at the maps showing the impacts of the landrise and the Ice melting.
Inger E
Tapio
>> I refuse to believe that the rising of the land could be rapid enough
>> to counteract the rising of the sea-level or to make a difference to
>> the people living back then. Paticularly when the melting seems to
>> have occurred over just a few decades.
> Tapsa,
> if you can reas Swedish than you can look at
> http://www.jip.se/Ytor1.html
>
> there you see that around 9000 BC the landrise was approximate 10
> metres/100 years and you can read about the landrise, Ice Coat melting
> etc in short text.(It's more complicated). If you can't read Swedish
> you can take a look at the maps showing the impacts of the landrise and
> the Ice melting.
>
Well, it's now evident that if I refuse to believe something doesn't
necessairily mean it's not true. (Then again one could argue that the sea-
level did rise to the same extent all over the world, but the land-level
didn't:)
Inger E
"Tapio" <h...@lop.sop> skrev i meddelandet
I can't find a proper URL for that one, I have seen a film once, that BBC
made some years ago re. the techtonic plates and there it was shown that due
to the different movements and interactions between the plates at the same
time as the landrise and hydrological situations etc etc the sealevel didn't
rise to same hights every where. I can't remember the title but it had
something to do with techtonical plates.
Inger E
Hammerstad
Neither Sweden nor Canada are at tectonic plate boundaries. Far away from these
the movements are to small in time to matter with respect to land rebound and
sea level rise.
See http://www.spacedaily.com/news/tectonics-01c.html (Inger this one is really
for you to compare against your C-paper!) Note also that land rise is in Ontario
about 5 mm/year.
Hammerstad
No, we are going through an interglacial. And regardless of what man does,
in another 50,000 years or so we will be in the middle of another ice age.
They have a period of about 100,000 years or so with the interglacial
lasting some 20-30,000 years.
Mike Cleven
It's very well-documented, especially concerning areas like the Hudson's
Bay Lowland/shoreline, where the rebound is ongoing; York Factory, which
was a port, is now some distance inland (can't remember by how much).
Remember that ice may melt overnight; the effect of its weight on the
crust is a question of the latter's elasticity; how long the "membrane"
of the crust takes to recoil after the weight removed from it _is_
fairly instantaneous, if you understand 10,000 years in geologic time
relative to long-term geological reality.
MC
Mike Cleven
Which part of Ontario? Ontario's almost bigger than the whole of
Scandinavia; if you're talking about southern Ontario, that's a whole
world away from the Hudson's Bay shoreline.
British Columbia, where I am, is MOST DEFINITELY at one of the tectonic
plate boundaries, which is why the Cordillera is where it is (the
crumpling of the NorthAm plate before it's sucked under with the Pacific
plate).
MC
Mike Cleven
If natural processes (excluding ourselves, humanity being a part of
nature though we don't see ourselves that way) were to continue, you'd
be right about 50,000 years from now; but the scale and size of the
monkeywrench we've thrown into the world climate doesn't allow for any
sure bets any more......
MC
Devadatta Mukutmoni
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>No; not thickening I think - haven't heard that anyway; but areas of the
>Antarctic _are_ getting colder; there's still chunks of ice breaking
Well, the report clearly indicated that one of the ice-sheets in
the Antarctic was thickening. But, it was not observed for the whole
continent.
Daryl Krupa
> Isn't the ice in the Antarctic thaw slowing down? The ice there showing signs
> of thickening?
>
> http://www.polarnews.com/
Doug:
If you mean the article from "The Scotsman", dated Jan. 20, then
yes, but
- the data are only from the ice streams draining the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet (WAIS) to the sea and to the ice shelves onshore
- the data were gathered over a short time span
- while this is good news for those fearing the catastrophic
thinning of the ice shelves in the West Antarctic (leading to
collapse and rapid outflow of the WAIS), it might be that
this is only a temporary effect. I.e., what they noted might be
an ice surge, responding to a time of increased precipitation
inland some time ago, which has since ended.
I await data re: the parent ice body, and its changes in thickness
recently, for confirmation that this thickening is a general trend
in the West Antarctic.
Cheers,
Daryl Krupa
john thrum
> snip
> Yes I did notice that but then we get down to a definition of what
largely
> is.
> It is very subjective and open to debate.
> In my opinion no culture has been largely free of religious
zealotry.
> Even today in the "Great Democracy" of the USA it is not largly free
and
> therefore is not a civilisation under your rules. The evidence I
put
> forward for this is that they still print "In God we trust" on all
their
> money and how the polititions cave in quickly when christian groups
try to
> get things they believe as immoral outlawed. :-)
But that is all show. Politicians cave in to whomever is screaming
the loudest. If pagan infidels scream louder than the Xians, they'll
get their way. I disagree that the US is not largely free. I have
lived in countries that *are* not largely free. There's a big
difference. True, the right-wing zealots have impinged on it a bit
more in the past few years. But we are still a far cry from being
like Iraq or China. There are still bars, strip joints, porno
theatres, and massage parlors galore in every major (and minor) city
(not that that is necessarily a *positive* thing for a civilization.
There is still full freedom of expression in the arts, although the
right-wingers occasionally try to cut federal funding for it because
they don't like something some radical has done.
Most universities are still free from domination by fanatics who want
to dictate their curriculum to them. I could go on and on. We are by
no means living in a constrained or oppressive society. Not yet
anyway.
john thrum
Hammerstad
http://www.city.north-bay.on.ca/lavase/lavase.htm
This was a site I found looking for the rebound in the Hudson Bay - Red River stretch
As the rebound is highest at the Hudson, I would presume that the South of Manitoba
and across the US border would be about the same (at least close enough for Inger
anyway).
By the way, I would be surprised if it is not the Pacific (and Gorda) plate - which is
oceanic - that is the one being sucked under the NorthAm - which is continental - and
not the opposite. Anyway mid Canada is far enough away from the tectonic plate
boundaries for that to be a factor in the land rebound since the ice age end.
Gilgamesh
I think we shall just have to agree to disagree
Fridrik Skulason
the following:
> http://www.jip.se/Ytor1.html
>
> there you see that around 9000 BC the landrise was approximate 10
> metres/100 years and you can read about the landrise, Ice Coat melting
> etc in short text.
Land rise of 10 meters in 100 years as the ice melted sounds surprisingly
fast to me, and if was wondering if this is indeed correct (and not just
a mistranslation somewhere) and what the explanation for this fast rise
is.
So, can anyone in sci.geo.geology clarify this?
-frisk
--
Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273
Author of F-PROT E-mail: fr...@f-prot.com fax: +354-5-617274
Hammerstad
The figure quoted does not seem unreasonable, but it is probably a maximum both
in space and time. Remember that the time for this figure was fairly recent
after the ice had gone, and now the maximum rebound is at about a tenth.
Inger E
"Fridrik Skulason" <fr...@complex.is> skrev i meddelandet
news:a2shlv$q2$1...@banani.complex.is...
> I am crossposting this to sci.geo.geology, hoping to get a comment on
> the following:
>
> > http://www.jip.se/Ytor1.html
> >
> > there you see that around 9000 BC the landrise was approximate 10
> > metres/100 years and you can read about the landrise, Ice Coat melting
> > etc in short text.
>
> Land rise of 10 meters in 100 years as the ice melted sounds surprisingly
> fast to me, and if was wondering if this is indeed correct (and not just
> a mistranslation somewhere) and what the explanation for this fast rise
> is.
>
> So, can anyone in sci.geo.geology clarify this?
>
> -frisk
Fridrik,
didn't you see that the page I sent you was from an offical Geological
Institution?
Inger E
Inger E
no the landrise isn't the same along the Canadian-Us border. Actually the
divergense is hugh and the first thing you will have to learn is that you
never can start from today's levels over sea and today's landrise in any
point at all interpolating the landrise over time and having any chance
reaching a reliable result!
First of all I have to tell you that you need to have the highest waterlevel
point in any given area between the point you are looking for a certain
level in the past, and the Oceans, Seas(observe that you have to have
knowledge of the Ice Lakes seas and the post Ice Lake seas as well, you have
a lot of them in the area we are discussing). That's not all. To have a
point in the past where the sea have reached it's highest level doesn't
mean that every points in a terrain have had their highest level at the same
time. This means that you for each point (and you have to have at least
1500-3000 checkpoints in an area as large as from Nelson River's outlet in
Hudson Bay down the watersystem to Red River, less checkpoints will make
your calculations inaccurate - for those who like to check the statistic
impact of a minor default value can use Tjebusjevs' thesis.
After that you have had the highest level for a point A and today's level
you can't rest. You also have to have full knowledge of the ground under
that point, the speed it takes for water on top to slip down to ground-water
level. That's not all. You also need to have knowledge of when the Ice Coat
melted in the point you are checking. Further more you need to have correct
data for Ocean levels not only at that time but also for every period unto
our Ocean level.
That's not all. As you must know the Ocean level we use as a figure to
estimate hights over sea isn't a fixed one. It's a figure which have been
estimated as a median-figure over a large number of years. The later
normally have small impact on the calculation, but and that's a big BUT
since the Ocean levels have rised and sunk and rised again you have to check
from the coast in and not from the A-point out. This you have to do for
every point in the terrain, all 1500-3000 points. You will be needing a
better computer than you and I have at home. When I draw the
waterlevel-lines for Östergötland-Northern Smaaland I had access via the
University in Linköping to a real large computer.
Mind you it's worth given the calculation all that time - after that I had
made the maps from Stone Age(later Stone Age) to 1000 AD I had help from the
Swedish "Fornminnesregister" a registre where all artifacts lose or fixed
found in Sweden is noted with correct longitude-latitude or alike figure.
88% of all lose items and more than 95% of all fixed dated to a certain time
in history were found less than 800 metres from the best plausible waterway
to be used during the time in question. None fixed item was marked in water,
only one lose an axe in what used to be a seabottom(a tarm of the Baltic Ice
Sea during the period when the Sea was connected to the Oceans).
For the moment some friends of mine and I are doing the same for Red River
valley. That's more than interesting. Actually all moorings are on the same
level if we look at the 14th Century level and less than 10 metres from the
post Ice Age lake(which I in earlier mails have called Iron Age Lake). Not
to mention the fact that as late as 1895 the older seabottom is marked as
swamp on maps.....
For the axes found I only have had the GIS figures for a few. Up to now the
same pattern is shown as I had expected. The full study will take at least
six more month.
I rest for now. If anyone is interested in the maps of the waterways "up" to
Roxen in Östergötland please send me a mail. If you can read Swedish you can
have the Essay as well. <inger_e....@telia.com>
Inger E
"Hammerstad" <eg...@start.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C51A16C...@start.no...
Hammerstad
I believe you are a teacher, but if this is typical of the way you try to
explain difficult concepts to your pupils I feel sorry for them. Hopefully for
them you are better when you know the subject you are presenting.
A very clear description of isostatic rebound is given here:
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/isostasy1/
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/tectonics-01c.html shows how isostatic rebound is
measured today. And this one should tell you that all the information you seek
is already available:
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/eng/fkarner/pages/rebound.htm
George Black
Thanks for the URLs.
Another nail in the coffin of ignorance.
Inger E
I guess you never will understand that it's you who are ignorant,
provocative and above all trying to misunderstand almost everything.
As an educated teacher you would have known that the level you present stuff
of different kind to the pupils depends on age and maturaty in the group you
are talking to.
I didn't know that you placed yourself among children in kindergarten, I
know now. Excuse me for believing that you could follow a simple
explination, simple compared to the program BBC and SVT(Swedish Television)
have produced and recommended being used for pupils from 8th grade, simple
compared in the books dealing with the different process I mentioned and
other I didn't mention which present the techtonical process for pupils age
14-15. I didn't know that you where unaware of the necessarity to look into
several nature-processes in order to if not understand at least comprehend
why there was post-glacial lakes and seas which in many cases in Northern
Europe as well as in North America have "lived" into medieval age when the
tipping due to diverged landrise figure in different part of the lake/sea
have gone to that stage when the water in the lake/sea flooded over to in
that moment lower lying land with the impact that the lake/sea in many cases
have disappered in less than 1 year.
Inger E
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C5303B7...@ihug.co.nz...
Mike Cleven
They're _both_ being sucked under; the subduction zone is at a slant
plunging back underneath North America, but this is with the combined
material of both plates after they're merged; the actual surface
plate-boundary is off the continental shelf some 200 mi off the Coast
but the combined plates run diagonally underneath the coastline at a
depth of about 30 miles (I think; maybe more, maybe less); this is where
"deep zone" quakes come from - the infamous "Big One" that the Northwest
has so far been spared in historical times. Mid-Canada is indeed far
enough away that this plate boundary has no effect on isostatic rebound
in that region, which is mostly Canadian Shield, a huge pluton that is
one of the world's oldest landforms; there _is_ a fault which runs from
Missouri up the line of the St. Lawrence, which is capable of cranking
out major quakes, but AFAIK it's not a plate boundary.
My own citation of BC's plate boundary was because you'd said "neither
Sweden nor Canada are at plate boundaries"; I responded concerning _my_
part of Canada, which as you may realize (or not) is a very big place
about which generalizations are not easily made.
MC
Hammerstad
No arguments left, Inger?
[#] 3rd_Crusader
These Theories were concocted by some poor sod of a Biologist call "Haggard
Ziz" who not even able to map his own garden indeed, since not having the
slightest clue about Geology ...
Further the poor chap _ completely haggard indeed _ landed in Grande
Bretagne and found as well to support his Theories some other poor sods
short of the most basic Geological Skill ... they drove to Scotland that
bloke Buckland and Haggard Ziz , got completessy pissed on whiskey near a
place called Argyll and made up they completely Ethilic indeed Glaciations
Theories between fits of bawdy Gallic songs at the local "Royal Arms" pub
!!!
What a shamefull lot !!!
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Founder Of The New Geology
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Inger E" <inger_e....@telia.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
4ev48.11318$n4.20...@newsc.telia.net...
Peter Halls
> I am crossposting this to sci.geo.geology, hoping to get a comment on
> the following:
>
> > http://www.jip.se/Ytor1.html
> >
> > there you see that around 9000 BC the landrise was approximate 10
> > metres/100 years and you can read about the landrise, Ice Coat melting
> > etc in short text.
>
> Land rise of 10 meters in 100 years as the ice melted sounds surprisingly
> fast to me, and if was wondering if this is indeed correct (and not just
> a mistranslation somewhere) and what the explanation for this fast rise
> is.
How about "sea level rise" - resulting from the return of water to the
oceans from the melting icecaps ... It could be equated to a "land fall" I
guess.
>
> So, can anyone in sci.geo.geology clarify this?
>
> -frisk
>
> --
> Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273
> Author of F-PROT E-mail: fr...@f-prot.com fax: +354-5-617274
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPPPPH H | Peter Halls - University of York Computing Service -
P P H | GIS Advisor
P P H | Email: P.H...@YORK.AC.UK
PPPPPJHHHHHH | Telephone: 01904 433806 FAX: 01904 433740
P J H | Smail: Computing Service,
P J H | University of York,
P J H | Heslington.
J | YORK YO10 5DD
J J | England.
JJJ This message has the status of a private & personal communication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
> There has never been any Ice Ages at all !!!
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Mike Cleven
Peter Halls wrote:
>
> On 25 Jan 2002, Fridrik Skulason wrote:
>
> > I am crossposting this to sci.geo.geology, hoping to get a comment on
> > the following:
> >
> > > http://www.jip.se/Ytor1.html
> > >
> > > there you see that around 9000 BC the landrise was approximate 10
> > > metres/100 years and you can read about the landrise, Ice Coat melting
> > > etc in short text.
> >
> > Land rise of 10 meters in 100 years as the ice melted sounds surprisingly
> > fast to me, and if was wondering if this is indeed correct (and not just
> > a mistranslation somewhere) and what the explanation for this fast rise
> > is.
>
> How about "sea level rise" - resulting from the return of water to the
> oceans from the melting icecaps ... It could be equated to a "land fall" I
> guess.
No; the two are different concepts, but of course interrelated.
Altitude from sea level is relative thing, of course, when the sea level
is changing; AFAIK the landrise (isostatic rebound) is somehow measured
relative to the earth's diameter (i.e. from the centre of the planet) as
is, ultimately, sea level. There's actual up-and-down motion of the
crust proper independent of the oceans; but the weight of water and ice
has to do with the up-and-down position of the crust, of course; which
is why isostatic rebound, as the weight of the ice is taken off the land
it naturally rises relative to the planet's gravity, i.e. in relation to
other parts of the crust and some kind of averaging from the core. The
exception to ice-melt is oceanic ice, the displacment of which works out
about the same; the Arctic Ocean becoming icefree isn't a big problem
for water levels; the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica icecaps,
since they're (mostly) land-based, would be, however.
The oceans are, sort of, part of the atmosphere rather than the crust;
liquid atmosphere, that is (hydrosphere, but that technically includes
clouds, streams, lakes etc).
MC
Neville Lindsay
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c54d6dc$0$4965$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
[---]
> Jean-Paul Turcaud
> Hydro & Mining Prospector
> Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Never heard of you - and you have been around for a couple of hundred years?
NL
Daryl Krupa
<snip>
> > > British Columbia, where I am, is MOST DEFINITELY at one of
> > > the tectonic plate boundaries, which is why the Cordillera
> > > is where it is (the crumpling of the NorthAm plate before
> > > it's sucked under with the Pacific plate).
> Hammerstad wrote:
<snip>
> > By the way, I would be surprised if it is not the Pacific
> > (and Gorda) plate - which is oceanic - that is the one being
> > sucked under the NorthAm - which is continental - and
> > not the opposite. Anyway mid Canada is far enough away from
> > the tectonic plate boundaries for that to be a factor in the
> > land rebound since the ice age end.
Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<3C52C55C...@bigfoot.com>...
> They're _both_ being sucked under; the subduction zone is at a slant
> plunging back underneath North America, but this is with the combined
> material of both plates after they're merged;
<snip>
I have to correct this misapprehension: Mike has misunderstood
the meaning of the term "subduction": it means the movement of
one thing underneath another thing.
In this case, oceanic crust associated with the Pacific Ocean
basin is moving underneath the continental crust of the North
American plate.
This is happening because there has been a collision between
plates of different densities, and the more buoyant one ended up
on top.
Some minor amounts of continent-derived sediment in the subduction
trench are being subducted with the oceanic plate, but they are not
parts of the continental plate.
Actually, some crustal material from the oceanic plate (e.g. mid-
ocean island chains) is buoyant enough that it detaches from the
subducting oceanic crust and attaches itself to the continental plate.
British Columbia is made up almost entirely of material that was
thus "scraped off of" the oceanic plate and amalgamated with North
America.
Sorry, Mike, but you are not correct. British Columbia is not subducting.
<snip>
> Mid-Canada
<snip>
> is mostly Canadian Shield, a huge pluton
> that is one of the world's oldest landforms;
The Canadian Shield contains several plutons, among other
igneous and metamorphic formations.
It is made up of pieces of various ages that glommed together
much as B.C. is glomming onto North America.
It is criss-crossed by numerous faults and suture zones at the
boundaries between the fromerly indepent micro-plates.
The Canadian Shield is not a pluton, which is a blob of granite
that forms at depth, usually under continental
crust, where subducted crust is melting and lighter fractions are
melting their way through the overlying solid rock, later solidifying.
> there _is_ a fault which runs from Missouri up the line of
> the St. Lawrence, which is capable of cranking
> out major quakes, but AFAIK it's not a plate boundary.
No, it's a failed rift zone. But it parallels a former plate
boundary in the Canadian Shield.
> My own citation of BC's plate boundary was because you'd said "neither
> Sweden nor Canada are at plate boundaries"; I responded concerning _my_
> part of Canada, which as you may realize (or not) is a very big place
> about which generalizations are not easily made.
Indeed. Bone up on this topic before you make your sweeping generalisations.
Daryl Krupa
Mike Cleven
Daryl Krupa wrote:
>
> > > Mike Cleven wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > British Columbia, where I am, is MOST DEFINITELY at one of
> > > > the tectonic plate boundaries, which is why the Cordillera
> > > > is where it is (the crumpling of the NorthAm plate before
> > > > it's sucked under with the Pacific plate).
>
> > Hammerstad wrote:
> <snip>
> > > By the way, I would be surprised if it is not the Pacific
> > > (and Gorda) plate - which is oceanic - that is the one being
> > > sucked under the NorthAm - which is continental - and
> > > not the opposite. Anyway mid Canada is far enough away from
> > > the tectonic plate boundaries for that to be a factor in the
> > > land rebound since the ice age end.
>
> Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<3C52C55C...@bigfoot.com>...
> > They're _both_ being sucked under; the subduction zone is at a slant
> > plunging back underneath North America, but this is with the combined
> > material of both plates after they're merged;
> <snip>
>
> I have to correct this misapprehension: Mike has misunderstood
> the meaning of the term "subduction": it means the movement of
> one thing underneath another thing.
I'm only using it because it's the common term quoted by geologists and
seismologist/vulcanologists out here in the region; and _they_'re the
ones calling it a "subduction zone"; John Tuzo-Wilson, the founder of
plate tectonics, was a local geography prof BTW...
> In this case, oceanic crust associated with the Pacific Ocean
> basin is moving underneath the continental crust of the North
> American plate.
> This is happening because there has been a collision between
> plates of different densities, and the more buoyant one ended up
> on top.
No -there's more than that going on. The North American plate is
"crunching up", hence the cordillera, atop the subduction zone, which
strikes underground from its (ocean-bottom) surface location at an angle
underneath British Columbia and WA/OR; the Cascade Volcano chain
(Garibaldi-Baker-Rainer-St.Helens-Hood and so on down to Shasta) sits
atop the subduction zone, the combined crunchy meltingness of the two
combined plates is so many miles deep beneath these peaks, although the
two begin their downward jounrney about 300 miles to the east; graphical
representations in the local rags generally show the subduction zone as
striking down from the ocean floor at about a 45 degree rake but I don't
think that's ever been measured. I think the reason the NorthAm plate
scrunches up instead of politely sliding under as the Pacific Plate is
doing back has something to do with the relative densities of sial
(continental crust) vs sima (oceanic crust); perhaps with the
brittleness of the former, or its flexibility, I don't know. The Coast
Mountain range in BC is actually a huge pluton formed when the mergence
of the two plates ruptured at some impossibly-long-ago time and spewed
lava upward underneath whatever was above it then (since cleared away by
erosion, mostly glacial, hence the pluton).
It's a bit different farther south, where the Pacific Plate is thought
to jut under the North American one all the way to Colorado and NM;
hence the big lava plateaux and other striking landscape features of the
western US (esp. and scarily the Yellowstone Caldera). This didn't
happen north of the Snake-Columbia, where the NorthAmerican plate has
been squeezed up like an accordion (ever notice those 45 degree angles
to the sedimentary layers in the Rockies?); it's not "going under" at
the same rate as the Pacific plate, but geological orthodoxy has it that
the two plates combine offshore beyond the Continental Shelf and _both_
are being pulled back into the mantle, albeit the North American plate
with somewhat more resistance than the obligingness of the Pacific
one....
> Some minor amounts of continent-derived sediment in the subduction
> trench are being subducted with the oceanic plate, but they are not
> parts of the continental plate.
> Actually, some crustal material from the oceanic plate (e.g. mid-
> ocean island chains) is buoyant enough that it detaches from the
> subducting oceanic crust and attaches itself to the continental plate.
> British Columbia is made up almost entirely of material that was
> thus "scraped off of" the oceanic plate and amalgamated with North
> America.
I think some of this detritus from the Pacific Plate forms the
Continental Shelf offshore, which is oddly flat given the striking
cordillera-ness of the mainland.
>
> Sorry, Mike, but you are not correct. British Columbia is not subducting.
Not yet, anyway; eventually it will, but not as quickly as the Pacific
Plate; at least that's what scientists in THIS AREA are saying; and they
get a lot of press time, what with the media's obsession with the
impending "Big One" and the volcanoes, etc.
> <snip>
> > Mid-Canada
> <snip>
> > is mostly Canadian Shield, a huge pluton
> > that is one of the world's oldest landforms;
>
> The Canadian Shield contains several plutons, among other
> igneous and metamorphic formations.
> It is made up of pieces of various ages that glommed together
> much as B.C. is glomming onto North America.
> It is criss-crossed by numerous faults and suture zones at the
> boundaries between the fromerly indepent micro-plates.
> The Canadian Shield is not a pluton, which is a blob of granite
> that forms at depth, usually under continental
> crust, where subducted crust is melting and lighter fractions are
> melting their way through the overlying solid rock, later solidifying.
Used the wrong word; what I meant was that it's one big chunk, more or
less.
>
> > there _is_ a fault which runs from Missouri up the line of
> > the St. Lawrence, which is capable of cranking
> > out major quakes, but AFAIK it's not a plate boundary.
>
> No, it's a failed rift zone. But it parallels a former plate
> boundary in the Canadian Shield.
>
> > My own citation of BC's plate boundary was because you'd said "neither
> > Sweden nor Canada are at plate boundaries"; I responded concerning _my_
> > part of Canada, which as you may realize (or not) is a very big place
> > about which generalizations are not easily made.
>
> Indeed. Bone up on this topic before you make your sweeping generalisations.
I didn't make generalizations; I was talking about BC and what I -do-
know about the place.
MC
[#] 3rd_Crusader
with amplitude up to 400m and on the Gibraltar Rock for example the lowering
was 150 m . This can still be seen as we observe the surf eroding 150m above
present level !!!
Further all the proof of Glaciation you can bring forward, demonstrate to
any Engineering minded person, that all the proofs you can bring forward
demonstrate that NO Glaciations occured indeed !
Your Theology /Gogology is living through the pangs of Agony in face of the
New Geology concepts brought forward !
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Founder Of The New Geology
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Peter Halls" <pj...@york.ac.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
Pine.SGI.3.95L.102012...@peters.york.ac.uk...
Julius Marlow
Who let you loose?
A leash and a walk down by a deep mine shaft and an accidental push over the
edge would be good for you.
--
"[#] 3rd_Crusader" <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3c563f8a$0$4985$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr...
<mentally deranged bullshit crap snipped to save polution>
Neville Lindsay
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:RUk58.18555$Ni2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sorries and humble obeisances for the repeats - sometimes WinXP does some
unusual things on me.
NL
Mike Cleven
mark...@io.com wrote:
>
> In article <db6703fe.02012...@posting.google.com>,
> rateof...@hotmail.com (Srinivas) wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Ice-Age Ended in 7500 BC
>
> you are correct in that after the ice age, the temperature continued to
> climb until about 5000bc. the time from 5000bc to now is "the climatic
> optimum" during which temperature has remained relatively more
> constant.
>
> humans tend to live near water, so rising sea levels could be expected
> to cover many neolithic settlements.
Then there's that Desmond Morris guy's idea that we were "aquatic apes"
for sometime (explaining why we don't have thick fur like apes and
monkeys, and why our hair has a hydrodynamic pattern opposite to that of
other simians), living around the seashore, wherever that was in those
days....
MC
[#] 3rd_Crusader
is the way you, in the Penal Colony, thank those who opened new ground and
found NEW GOLDFIELDS ! You fleece them and leave them dying by the road side
!!
Now just go and drink you sewage water, since besides all the shows I found
, I had in the hand the faculty to find & feel pure water underground in
five seconds where you bastards would not achieve this in five centuries !
Oh , it's purified sewage /surface water ? Good dezeazzz in perpective !
What is happening now just serve you right ! Temperature raising up to 42 °
insided houses in Perth, since I just phoned 10 minutes ago in Perth ! Do
you know what that does mean ????????? Inacceptable electronisation of the
ground conducting to drought and antiicipating major Earthquakes ! You don't
believe me ? Then carry out a rH2 measure of the humus and just see if it's
not raising all the time ... you don't know to do it ? Well, just ask some
analyst like me for example ! ..... oh yaah , I was forgetting ... I am here
and have not intention to ever go back and help you again ! You taught me
where unable of the least gratitude or recognition ! ............ pitiful
blokes !
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Founder Of The New Geology
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Julius Marlow" <please...@newsgroup.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: sVr58.82449$HW3.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Wally Anglesea™
<3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote:
>That 's too late Bastard for that ! I know this was in stock for me as this
>is the way you, in the Penal Colony, thank those who opened new ground and
>found NEW GOLDFIELDS ! You fleece them and leave them dying by the road side
>!!
>
>Now just go and drink you sewage water, since besides all the shows I found
>, I had in the hand the faculty to find & feel pure water underground in
>five seconds where you bastards would not achieve this in five centuries !
>Oh , it's purified sewage /surface water ? Good dezeazzz in perpective !
>
>What is happening now just serve you right ! Temperature raising up to 42 °
>insided houses in Perth, since I just phoned 10 minutes ago in Perth !
They have the air conditioner turned the wrong way then. I have
buddies over there, and they cannot see 42 degrees inside their house.
> Do
>you know what that does mean ????????? Inacceptable electronisation of the
>ground conducting to drought and antiicipating major Earthquakes !
>You don't
>believe me ?
no, because you are the same idiot who predicted a tidal wave would
wash away the Sydney Olympics. IOW, a kook.
> Then carry out a rH2 measure of the humus and just see if it's
>not raising all the time ... you don't know to do it ? Well, just ask some
>analyst like me for example ! ..... oh yaah , I was forgetting ... I am here
>and have not intention to ever go back and help you again ! You taught me
>where unable of the least gratitude or recognition ! ............ pitiful
>blokes !
Well, Australia *does* have standards, so you just stay right where
you are. We have enough kooks and idiots already.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Grumpy Croc
This has nothing to do with soc.culture.indian., And though you mention
earthquakes, it really has nothing to do with sci.geo.earthquakes.....
It will also be forwarded to alt.usenet.kooks.
Grumpy Croc
Daryl Krupa
> > > They're _both_ being sucked under; the subduction zone is at a slant
> > > plunging back underneath North America, but this is with the combined
> > > material of both plates after they're merged;
> > <snip>
> >
> Daryl Krupa wrote:
> > I have to correct this misapprehension: Mike has misunderstood
> > the meaning of the term "subduction": it means the movement of
> > one thing underneath another thing.
>
> I'm only using it because it's the common term quoted by geologists and
> seismologist/vulcanologists out here in the region; and _they_'re the
> ones calling it a "subduction zone"; John Tuzo-Wilson, the founder of
> plate tectonics, was a local geography prof BTW...
You seem to have missed reading my description of subduction, below.
Of course there is a subduction zone east of B.C.'s continental slope.
But the North American plate is not being subducted there.
> > In this case, oceanic crust associated with the Pacific Ocean
> > basin is moving underneath the continental crust of the North
> > American plate.
> > This is happening because there has been a collision between
> > plates of different densities, and the more buoyant one ended up
> > on top.
>
> No -there's more than that going on. The North American plate is
> "crunching up", hence the cordillera, atop the subduction zone
<snip redundant description of a subduction zone that disagrees with
Mike's assertion that North America is being subducted, and agrees
with my position on the matter>
B.C.'s cordillera is not just a result of "crunching up":
it is a collection of continental microplates that have refused to
subduct when they are brought to the subduction zone off of the
west coast of North America, except for the Rockies on the Alberta
border.
The land west of the Rocky Mountain Trench is made up of these
exotic terranes, mostly former island arcs. They were subjected to
some folding, faulting and thrusting after docking, but the
majority of their deformation took place as they were
_resisting subduction_.
And besides that, much of the strain on them is lateral, i.e.
they were being dragged northward by the relative motion of the
oceanic plate(s) offshore (hence the numerous strike-slip faults
and pull-apart basins now occupied by interior lakes and rivers),
so the compressive stress on them was much reduced.
> I think the reason the NorthAm plate scrunches up
> instead of politely sliding under as the Pacific Plate
And here you deny that North America is being subducted.
I must conclude that you are not cognisant of the meaning of the term.
> is doing back has something to do with the relative densities of sial
> (continental crust) vs sima (oceanic crust);
... as I mentioned in the part you failed to notice, above.
> perhaps with the brittleness of the former, or its flexibility,
> I don't know.
> The Coast Mountain range in BC is actually a huge pluton formed when
> the mergence of the two plates ruptured at some impossibly-long-ago
> time and spewed lava
Magma.
> upward underneath whatever was above it then (since cleared away by
> erosion, mostly glacial, hence the pluton).
What was above it, and around it, was continental crust that had
refused to subduct.
> It's a bit different farther south, where the Pacific Plate is thought
> to jut under the North American one all the way to Colorado and NM;
> hence the big lava plateaux and other striking landscape features of the
> western US (esp. and scarily the Yellowstone Caldera). This didn't
> happen north of the Snake-Columbia, where the NorthAmerican plate has
> been squeezed up like an accordion (ever notice those 45 degree angles
> to the sedimentary layers in the Rockies?); it's not "going under" at
> the same rate as the Pacific plate, but geological orthodoxy has it that
> the two plates combine offshore beyond the Continental Shelf and _both_
> are being pulled back into the mantle, albeit the North American plate
> with somewhat more resistance than the obligingness of the Pacific
> one....
That's just not so.
North America is not subducting on its west coast, it is
over-riding the subducting oceanic crust of the Pacific ocean floor.
> > Some minor amounts of continent-derived sediment in the subduction
> > trench are being subducted with the oceanic plate, but they are not
> > parts of the continental plate.
> > Actually, some crustal material from the oceanic plate (e.g. mid-
> > ocean island chains) is buoyant enough that it detaches from the
> > subducting oceanic crust and attaches itself to the continental plate.
> > British Columbia is made up almost entirely of material that was
> > thus "scraped off of" the oceanic plate and amalgamated with North
> > America.
>
> I think some of this detritus from the Pacific Plate forms the
> Continental Shelf offshore, which is oddly flat given the striking
> cordillera-ness of the mainland.
The continental shelf is an underwater extension of the North
American Plate.
It's flat partly because it is a sediment trap.
> > Sorry, Mike, but you are not correct. British Columbia is not subducting.
>
> Not yet, anyway; eventually it will, but not as quickly as the Pacific
> Plate; at least that's what scientists in THIS AREA are saying;
No, they are not. You have misunderstood the meaning of the term
"subduction", or you are using some media flack's misunderstanding
of the term.
> and they
> get a lot of press time, what with the media's obsession with the
> impending "Big One" and the volcanoes, etc.
>
> > <snip>
> > > Mid-Canada
> <snip>
> > > is mostly Canadian Shield, a huge pluton
> > > that is one of the world's oldest landforms;
> >
> > The Canadian Shield contains several plutons, among other
> > igneous and metamorphic formations.
> > It is made up of pieces of various ages that glommed together
> > much as B.C. is glomming onto North America.
> > It is criss-crossed by numerous faults and suture zones at the
> > boundaries between the fromerly indepent micro-plates.
> > The Canadian Shield is not a pluton, which is a blob of granite
> > that forms at depth, usually under continental
> > crust, where subducted crust is melting and lighter fractions are
> > melting their way through the overlying solid rock, later solidifying.
>
> Used the wrong word; what I meant was that it's one big chunk, more or
> less.
Which is not a pluton.
> > > there _is_ a fault which runs from Missouri up the line of
> > > the St. Lawrence, which is capable of cranking
> > > out major quakes, but AFAIK it's not a plate boundary.
> >
> > No, it's a failed rift zone. But it parallels a former plate
> > boundary in the Canadian Shield.
> >
> > > My own citation of BC's plate boundary was because you'd said "neither
> > > Sweden nor Canada are at plate boundaries"; I responded concerning _my_
> > > part of Canada, which as you may realize (or not) is a very big place
> > > about which generalizations are not easily made.
> >
> > Indeed. Bone up on this topic before you make your sweeping generalisations.
>
> I didn't make generalizations; I was talking about BC and what I -do-
> know about the place.
No, you were making errouneous generalisations from a limited knowledge base.
Accept the corrections, and move on.
Daryl Krupa
("venal" and "obtuse", according to you . . . )
Mike Cleven
Daryl Krupa wrote:
>
> > > Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<3C52C55C...@bigfoot.com>...
> > > > They're _both_ being sucked under; the subduction zone is at a slant
> > > > plunging back underneath North America, but this is with the combined
> > > > material of both plates after they're merged;
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > Daryl Krupa wrote:
> > > I have to correct this misapprehension: Mike has misunderstood
> > > the meaning of the term "subduction": it means the movement of
> > > one thing underneath another thing.
> >
> Mike Cleven <iro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<3C554479...@bigfoot.com>...
> > I'm only using it because it's the common term quoted by geologists and
> > seismologist/vulcanologists out here in the region; and _they_'re the
> > ones calling it a "subduction zone"; John Tuzo-Wilson, the founder of
> > plate tectonics, was a local geography prof BTW...
>
> You seem to have missed reading my description of subduction, below.
> Of course there is a subduction zone east of B.C.'s continental slope.
> But the North American plate is not being subducted there.
West of BC's continental slope? Or do you mean east of the perimeter of
the continental shelf?
Well, next time an article on this appears in the local rags, I'll
forward it to you so YOU can write a letter to the editor clarifying
their mistakes, OK?
>
> > I think the reason the NorthAm plate scrunches up
> > instead of politely sliding under as the Pacific Plate
>
> And here you deny that North America is being subducted.
> I must conclude that you are not cognisant of the meaning of the term.
>
> > is doing back has something to do with the relative densities of sial
> > (continental crust) vs sima (oceanic crust);
>
> ... as I mentioned in the part you failed to notice, above.
>
> > perhaps with the brittleness of the former, or its flexibility,
> > I don't know.
> > The Coast Mountain range in BC is actually a huge pluton formed when
> > the mergence of the two plates ruptured at some impossibly-long-ago
> > time and spewed lava
>
> Magma.
Yeah, whatever; molten rock.....
>
> > upward underneath whatever was above it then (since cleared away by
> > erosion, mostly glacial, hence the pluton).
>
> What was above it, and around it, was continental crust that had
> refused to subduct.
Is this because it was lighter than the sima of the Pacific plate, or
because of hardness, or what?
>
> > It's a bit different farther south, where the Pacific Plate is thought
> > to jut under the North American one all the way to Colorado and NM;
> > hence the big lava plateaux and other striking landscape features of the
> > western US (esp. and scarily the Yellowstone Caldera). This didn't
> > happen north of the Snake-Columbia, where the NorthAmerican plate has
> > been squeezed up like an accordion (ever notice those 45 degree angles
> > to the sedimentary layers in the Rockies?); it's not "going under" at
> > the same rate as the Pacific plate, but geological orthodoxy has it that
> > the two plates combine offshore beyond the Continental Shelf and _both_
> > are being pulled back into the mantle, albeit the North American plate
> > with somewhat more resistance than the obligingness of the Pacific
> > one....
>
> That's just not so.
> North America is not subducting on its west coast, it is
> over-riding the subducting oceanic crust of the Pacific ocean floor.
Again, there's been a plethora of illustrative graphics of this in the
local media for years; if I can dig any up I'll forward some to you; but
I don't have a membership to the Vancouver Sun archives....
>
> > > Some minor amounts of continent-derived sediment in the subduction
> > > trench are being subducted with the oceanic plate, but they are not
> > > parts of the continental plate.
> > > Actually, some crustal material from the oceanic plate (e.g. mid-
> > > ocean island chains) is buoyant enough that it detaches from the
> > > subducting oceanic crust and attaches itself to the continental plate.
> > > British Columbia is made up almost entirely of material that was
> > > thus "scraped off of" the oceanic plate and amalgamated with North
> > > America.
> >
> > I think some of this detritus from the Pacific Plate forms the
> > Continental Shelf offshore, which is oddly flat given the striking
> > cordillera-ness of the mainland.
>
> The continental shelf is an underwater extension of the North
> American Plate.
> It's flat partly because it is a sediment trap.
but why isn't it as mountainous as the other adjacent bits of the North
American plate nearby?
>
> > > Sorry, Mike, but you are not correct. British Columbia is not subducting.
> >
> > Not yet, anyway; eventually it will, but not as quickly as the Pacific
> > Plate; at least that's what scientists in THIS AREA are saying;
>
> No, they are not. You have misunderstood the meaning of the term
> "subduction", or you are using some media flack's misunderstanding
> of the term.
Must be. Never did finish that geography degree (I was more of a
political geographer anyway)
>
> > and they
> > get a lot of press time, what with the media's obsession with the
> > impending "Big One" and the volcanoes, etc.
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Mid-Canada
> > <snip>
> > > > is mostly Canadian Shield, a huge pluton
> > > > that is one of the world's oldest landforms;
> > >
> > > The Canadian Shield contains several plutons, among other
> > > igneous and metamorphic formations.
> > > It is made up of pieces of various ages that glommed together
> > > much as B.C. is glomming onto North America.
> > > It is criss-crossed by numerous faults and suture zones at the
> > > boundaries between the fromerly indepent micro-plates.
> > > The Canadian Shield is not a pluton, which is a blob of granite
> > > that forms at depth, usually under continental
> > > crust, where subducted crust is melting and lighter fractions are
> > > melting their way through the overlying solid rock, later solidifying.
> >
> > Used the wrong word; what I meant was that it's one big chunk, more or
> > less.
>
> Which is not a pluton.
"big chunk of really old rock" - how's that?
>
> > > > there _is_ a fault which runs from Missouri up the line of
> > > > the St. Lawrence, which is capable of cranking
> > > > out major quakes, but AFAIK it's not a plate boundary.
> > >
> > > No, it's a failed rift zone. But it parallels a former plate
> > > boundary in the Canadian Shield.
> > >
> > > > My own citation of BC's plate boundary was because you'd said "neither
> > > > Sweden nor Canada are at plate boundaries"; I responded concerning _my_
> > > > part of Canada, which as you may realize (or not) is a very big place
> > > > about which generalizations are not easily made.
> > >
> > > Indeed. Bone up on this topic before you make your sweeping generalisations.
> >
> > I didn't make generalizations; I was talking about BC and what I -do-
> > know about the place.
>
> No, you were making errouneous generalisations from a limited knowledge base.
> Accept the corrections, and move on.
Duly noted; I'll try to remember your corrections when the Big One
hits....
>
> Daryl Krupa
> ("venal" and "obtuse", according to you . . . )
In this thread, or another where you might have deserved it?
--
Mike Cleven
http://www.cayoosh.net (early BC history)
http://www.hiyu.net (Cayoosh Jargon phrasebook/history)
[#] 3rd_Crusader
Please send protest to ab...@earthlink.net regarding the sod who published
previous message . Indeed the chap is continuously posting on ng who never
ask for his irrelevant literature.
Further note that the Yellow Coward masquarading under the name of Crumpy
Croc is someone who is plaguing the sci.ng and posting insulting abuses
under a dozen other names ! The Yellow Coward has been harassing this way
quite a few people who since have disappeared from sci.geo.ng !
Personally I will forward to ab...@earthlink.net i.e. to his provider each
time the man publishes and inondated the ng of his ranting !
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Founder Of The New Geology
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Grumpy Croc" <Grump...@FLHQ.Au> a écrit dans le message de news:
3C57578D...@FLHQ.Au...
[#] 3rd_Crusader
regarding obstructions to anticipating Quakes by measure of rH2 !
The ignorance in this domain is not acceptable and counting the death as the
present Gogology has us use too, is the result of the idioty and stupidity
of that Horrid Sci000nce indeed
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Founder Of The New Geology
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Grumpy Croc" <Grump...@FLHQ.Au> a écrit dans le message de news:
3C57578D...@FLHQ.Au...
[#] 3rd_Crusader
To said providers of a noted NEWS GROUP TERRORIST !
Please forward previous post to ab...@newsc.telia.net ;
ab...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com ,ab...@banani.complex.is as well as to WEBMASTER
/ SALES / ADMIN / MANAGER / SUPPORT / of all those departments as I am
doing it myself !
The French-hating posts common from a chap publishing under a dozen assumed
names are indeed un-acceptable .
The yellow coward hiding himself does not indeed comes into the open as he
would indeed face justice !
The assumed names of the yellow cowards are mostly Tedd Klondike; Crumpy
Croc or Der Coach . You will appreciate the type of insult by looking at
the foot of present message and I beg to supply me the name of the Net
Criminal so he should be brought to Justice .
Please take indeed appropriate action since the man is indeed assuming
dozens of different
identities and acting as I have told him before while he published under
name of Der Coach, as a determined French-Hating person of the kind I often
met in Australia during my 10 + duration there !
I just happen to be an
Australian Mining Pioneer which through 3 main recorded discoveries opened
the Great Sandy Desert to Mining . One of those was the Telfer Gold Mine at
one stage the Greatest Gold Mine of Australia.
Awaiting your early reply I remain Dear Sirs
Your Faithfully
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer Of Australian Mining
Founder Of The New Geology
Web Sites:
The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://www.rune-inc.com/welleda/
Refutation Of The Horrid Geological Myths
http://www.rune-inc.com/horus/
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Todd Klondike" <Sir...@FanaticLegions.mil> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3c595a3c....@FanaticLegions.Mil...
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:22:07 +0100, "[#] 3rd_Crusader"
> <3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> enlightened us with message ID
> <3c584aae$0$4964$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>, :
>
> >Hi all !
> >Please send protest to ab...@earthlink.net regarding the sod who
published
> >previous message . Indeed the chap is continuously posting on ng who
never
> >ask for his irrelevant literature.
>
> Do your own fucking dirty work, frog. All Croc did was to point out
> your abuse of the Newsgroups header. If you don't like that...then
> YOU complain...or, did earthlink tell you to piss off?
>
>
> --
>
> Many frogs claim to have an ancestor who was active in the 'French
> Underground'. Of course, every frog who viciously withheld their
> customary cheerful 'bonjour' when addressing their German masters was
> a freedom-fighter, and every serveur who over-charged an SS officer
> was a Hero of the Resistance.
>
> Pitiful
Wally Anglesea™
<3rd_cr...@rune-inc.com> wrote:
>Dear Sirs ,
>
>To said providers of a noted NEWS GROUP TERRORIST !
>
>Please forward previous post to ab...@newsc.telia.net ;
>ab...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com ,ab...@banani.complex.is as well as to WEBMASTER
>/ SALES / ADMIN / MANAGER / SUPPORT / of all those departments as I am
>doing it myself !
>
If anyone gets a query or complaint about JP from abuse depts at
bigpond.com, I've already clued them in on his history. Including his
claims that the recent Sydney Bushfires were divine retribution for
not giving him billions of dollars, and that he predicted a giant
tidal wave would wash away the Sydney Olympics. They are also clued
in on his posting to inappropriate newsgroups as a pest.