The Ice Age Debate

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I have done yahoo searches, google searches, and even ATS searches, and yet I find nothing on this matter: the fact that the Ice Ages never occured.

Sure, I have read about it. In fact, the most compelling arguement I have read so far AGAINST there having been an Ice Age is in the book The Atlantis Enigma by Herbie Brennan (Berkley Books, c 1999); the author doesn't try to prove the existance of Atlantis, but rather finds evidence and examples of there having BEEN something akin to Atlantis.

In this book, he talks about the Ice Age, and how it cannot have happened, giving often repeated examples of wolly mammoths with green plants still in mouths and stomach (as well as other large animals in same condition), the fact that cave art, although well detailed, shows that people wore no clothing, and items like that, indicating a warm climate during the supposed earth wide deep freeze.

There were a couple examples against the Ice Age that made alot of sense to me... the first concerned glacial movement.

Glaciers, by current examples, move downhill. They can move across a flat terrian no further than 7 miles. But all glaciers require a downhill start.

Look at a map of North America, or more specifically, the Arctic Ocean region.

Where are the mountians?

If the North American Ice Ages had occured the way the experts say, then that would mean that the entire central Canadian area, as well as the Arctic region, would have to have had numerous mountian ranges. But there arn't any.

So how did the glaciers move across North America from the North?

Another fine example involves the much needed water. This is one I particularly enjoy, and have used this arguement on several ATS threads: To make ice, you need water.

Obvious enough, right? There's plenty of water on the world which could have been used. Lakes, oceans, rivers, etcetera...

But lakes and oceans and rivers don't create the REQUIRED water; free moisture, airborn... precipitation. Well, okay, they do, but then again, they don't.

Our current global climate generates enough moisture in the air for some storms, in the form of rain or snow. Now think for a moment... how much free moisture in the air would be needed to generate a glacial ice sheet to cover an entire geological area? Now multiply that to cover not only Canada and North America, but Europe, China, Australia, etcetera?

*please keep in mind that according to the Ice Age experts, Siberia was NOT covered by glaciers. In fact, it still doesn't have any ice.*

That's alot of rain.

Wait... back track a moment... let me rephrase that.

That would mean the world was a much warmer and humid place, in order to have that much moisture in the air. ALOT warmer. Oceans would have been shallower (anywhere from 300 to 700 feet)... explains all the sunken cities and temples discovered, doesn't it?

All that moisture in the air, turning into rain and snow and sleet, freezing on the ground, building up... becoming drifts, growing into banks, growing into mighty glaciers speeding across the land at a whopping inch a year, swallowing up animals and freezing them while still preserving them...

Warm weather is needed to create free moisture and precipitation. Cold is only needed to keep the moisture frozen in its fallen state (snow or sleet).

Now, I don't know what does which... does massive rain cloud cover trap in heat, or does it block of sun light? Would a lack of sun light still prevent UV or ultra violet rays from warming the surface? Our moon, and even Mars, has no atmosphere to generate clouds, yet they are cold... just wondering...

So here we have the problem.

Warmer climate. Hot, even. A lack of mountians to allow glacial movement. Siberia, the coldest region in the world, ice free, yet supporting massive creatures (which required ALOT of food in the form of plants). Naked cave art.

All key examples as to the proof of an Ice Age?

Another example, one which isn't mentioned in books...

Crystal Falls, Michigan. Home of the largest living organism ANYWHERE... a simple fungal moss which covers more than 80 acres, dated at over 10,000 years old. Repeat: A SINGLE simple moss (they have traced the root patterns back to the source).

The last Ice Age in America, the Wisconsin Glacial Cap, covered this area, with the ice retreating about 10,000 years ago.

I could go on and on about evidence and proof, give examples and lists against there ever having been an Ice Age (as stated by experts), but I open the floor to other members now. Pros and cons, it doesn't matter!

**I still believe in a rapid "over-night" type Ice Age scenerio, and I can even see the benefits of polar or global axis shifts, but a slow and steady Ice Age?**




posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Wow, what a load of B.S.

There is too much that is totally wrong here to even know where to begin.

OK for an easy one:


Originally posted by soothsayer
Crystal Falls, Michigan. Home of the largest living organism ANYWHERE... a simple fungal moss which covers more than 80 acres, dated at over 10,000 years old. Repeat: A SINGLE simple moss (they have traced the root patterns back to the source).


Not according to the original researchers:


By far the most likely hypothesis is that this clone reached it enormous size through vegetative growth. Thus the Armillaria clone was proven to be quite a humongous fungus. By estimating (very conservatively, I might add) the growth rate of the fungus under their natural conditions and by extrapolating the weight of the clone from smaller soil samples (again very conservatively), Smith et al. found the clone to be at least 1500 years old and weigh at least 9,700 kg (more than 21,000 pounds or 100 tons), close to the mass of an adult blue whale.

botit.botany.wisc.edu...

Then you state:

The last Ice Age in America, the Wisconsin Glacial Cap, covered this area, with the ice retreating about 10,000 years ago.



On the contrary, the Laurenetide ice sheet had retreated from Iron county Michigan (Crystal Falls) by 12,000 years BP. The Greatlakean re-advance that occurred around 11,000 years BP was further east, carving out Green bay and the northern portion of Lake Michigan.



[edit on 7-5-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Wow. Where to start? Do ice ages exist? Yes. We are currently in one. At one time it was thought that ice ages evolved slowly over hundreds of thousands of years. It was only until recently that we discovered that they start overnight. Now this doesn't mean that most of the US and Canada got covered in a thousand feet of ice in a year. All you need is for snowcover to remain year round to kick things off. It might take a superstorm to dump enough snow that it isn't able to melt in one season. Perhaps an event like a supervolcanic eruption would be needed to cut down on sunlight enough to allow snow to fall all year long. Glaciers take a long time to develop. It takes quite a bit of snow to compress into 10 feet of ice. Let alone 100 feet or 1000 feet. But glaciers exist today and evidence of massive glaciers exist on all maps. It is so easy to spot on a map. Plus it is easy to track in mineral deposits.

I'll leave it at this for now.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
another good book about the theroy of an ice age is... cataclysm compelling evidence of a cosmic catastrophe

who to believe, who to believe......................mainstream science can't be wrong.....right?....right?.....



what if it is wrong.....................



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
It is one thing to debate whether an ice age can happen or not if you weren't in the middle of one. Its like laying on the beach to get a tan and debating with someone the existance of water.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer

...Sure, I have read about it. In fact, the most compelling arguement I have read so far AGAINST there having been an Ice Age is in the book The Atlantis Enigma by Herbie Brennan (Berkley Books, c 1999); the author doesn't try to prove the existance of Atlantis, but rather finds evidence and examples of there having BEEN something akin to Atlantis...




uh-oh. Someone wrote a book. That must make it a fact.

Learn how to read critically.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
Someone... book... fact.

... read critically.


Hmm... I should try that.

Apparently such advice should be for all... after all, I believe I was quoted as saying "the most compelling arguement so far". I would naturally assume that that would mean other books have been read, especially since I said "so far".

Does it make it a fact? No. No matter how many books I have read on the subject, no matter how many books there are in print dealing with the subject, it does not make it a fact. NOTHING is a fact until it is witnessed.

That's why the Ice Age is referred to as a "theory". Perhaps you might have heard of that, if you were to read critically.

**edit due to lengthy quote**

[edit on 9-5-2005 by soothsayer]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not according to the original researchers:


found the clone to be at least 1500 years old and weigh at least 9,700 kg (more than 21,000 pounds or 100 tons), close to the mass of an adult blue whale.




I would assume the key would in the quote would be "at least 1,500 years old". **EDIT... your link and post also mentions "a conservative age of at least 1500 years"... let's not forget the safe conservative route**

If you go to this site: www.crystalfalls.org... , you would probably find this sentence as well... and I quote...

"between 1,500 and 10,000 years old".

Let's just settle this one with an average age of 5, 250 years, alrighty?

And now, to move onwards to Indy...

I am not debating wether or not there WAS an Ice Age, I am debating wether or not it occured the way excepted scientific theory holds it to have existed or happened.

If anyone bothered to read my original post all the way through, they might have noticed my closing sentence.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by soothsayer]

**second edit due to warning on too lengthy of a quote.**

[edit on 9-5-2005 by soothsayer]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
double posted the "edit" for some reason. Oops!

[edit on 9-5-2005 by soothsayer]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
An ice age is really a combination of both. You need the big kick to get it started and from there it progresses slowly. Lets say for arguement sake that the big change hits and in a matter of a few years most of Canada is covered 365 days by ice. With each additional winter the ice would get ticker and the ice line would move progressively south. Eventually the massive ice sheet itself would work its way south much like a traditional glacier. As the ice sheet moves further south it expands the amount of area that can refelect the sun's energy back in to space. The result is a snow line that moves even further south. It won't cover North America in ice in a few years. But the first round will be layed down quickly. That is all nature needs.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
How does this alternative theory explain the evidence explained best by glaciers and ice ages? Like glacial till deposits, groving on vast areas of rocks, and the general geographical structure of some areas??





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum