It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The rapid melting and recession of the Imja Glacier, and the simultaneous growth of Imja Tsho, have alarmed national park staff and the Sherpas who grow potatoes and run trekking lodges in scattered villages down valley. Glaciologists are concerned too, for they are seeing glacial lakes forming and filling faster than they can identify and catalog them. Ultimately, they fear, many will simply grow too large and burst through their moraines of unstable ice and rubble--as happened in northern Bhutan in 1994. That year, a mile-long glacial lake named Luggye Tsho, near Bhutan's border with Tibet, ruptured catastrophically. Over a period of several hours, the entire lake--more than a billion cubic feet of water--emptied out, sending a rampaging torrent down valley that swept away an artisans' colony near the town of Punakha, killing 23 people. Along Bhutan's border with India, 125 miles away, a hydrograph that measures the level of the nearby Sankosh River broke when the water rose to eight feet above normal. Now two nearby lakes, Thorthormi and Raphstreng, are also poised to overflow.
Originally posted by ANNED
Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by infolurker
Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.
This data was published in 2005, it was a rigourous study done by a reputable Marine biologist who works for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He stumbled on this suddenly buried forest in 2002 while taking core samples around the Great Barrier Reef. He was astonished with what the samples were showing, and went back with a larger team in 2005.
This is peer reviewed data and no one is challenging what he found or his conclusions.... Just ignoring the implcations. :shk:
They never challenge data like his.
They just never acknowledge it at all and hope no one else will read it. (IE the public)
If they challenged this there would be other researchers that would check to get there own findings and then 'out' the critics that challenged the original research.
That would be a story that would draw more research on the data and make it a bigger story.
Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
reply to post by infolurker
Hallelujah, hosanna and amen! What is more interesting is how hard it is for current geologists and archaeologists to accept that things are not how they were 'taught'. Data like thus has tendency to get conveniently ignored, because it challenges everything they think they know.
]
Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Hello Harte, it was NOT geologists that discovered this, but Marine Biologists. It is unclear, by dint of the fact that it is not implied, that this rise was due to landmass distirubution. You are welcome to -- awww, its like old times -- USE THE LINK and inform yourself though.
Originally posted by TheWayISeeItIs your position that you do not believe there is any possibility of sudden and massive coastal floodings and leading to sudden loss of landmass at the end of the last ice age?
No question that ice dams were breaking occasionally. Large chunks of glacial ice falling into the sea could cause localized tsunami-like effects as well. Both emphaisze the local effect, and neither result in any lasting massive increase in sea level.
I don't agree with you.
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...
It's NOT the chunk of ice which causes the catastrophy.
It's the fact that BEHIND this ice barrier, there was a SEA : a glacial sea, resulting from the melting of the glacier.
Just figure this out, and you will understand that the end of the glacial age was accompanied with tremendous and striking floods which swept out quite ALL the costal civilizations, which means quite ALL the civilizations at that time.
Please, read my upper links which are talking of such events occuring NOWADAYS, at a smaller scale, near the Himalaya.
Originally posted by orkson
I don't agree with you.
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...
Originally posted by orkson
Just figure this out, and you will understand that the end of the glacial age was accompanied with tremendous and striking floods which swept out quite ALL the costal civilizations, which means quite ALL the civilizations at that time.
Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by orkson
I don't agree with you.
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...
Resulting in an incease of sea level of, what, one millimeter or so?
You don't see this?
Also, pleae provide evidence of this release before you go on about how it would flood the entire Earth's shorelines.
Originally posted by orkson
If you think that the flow of 3,000 km x 4.000 km x 3000 m of water into the ocean has just "local effects", you're aside of your shoes...
Regional flood events like in India have been demonstrated to occur. Global flood events aren't evidenced in the geological record. An ET impact has been discussed for some years, but again there's no evidence for the time period preferred by Flood fans. That an impact event IS being discussed shows that science is the way to go.
Lake Agassiz was the largest glacial lake in North America. It was formed 11 500 years ago in front of the northeastwardly retreating Laurentide Ice Sheet, which acted as a dam. The lake covered much of Manitoba, northwestern Ontario, parts of eastern Saskatchewan and North Dakota, and northwestern Minnesota. At its largest, Lake Agassiz was about 1500 km long, over 1100 km wide and about 210 m deep
Harte : I have some mathematical knowledge ...
3,000 km x 4,000 km x 3,000 m of water makes
36,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water.
So, which is the height of this quantity of water on 75% of the surface of a sphere of 6,380 km of radius ?
The answer is : 94 meters.
Figure this out ! ( Not mentioning the tsunami effect, before the equlibrium at the new level of the sea ...)
You estimation ( thus, your theory ) was false.
And this is an understatement.