#Sea Levels?
4 messages in this thread
Dear All,
I will admit to a tendency to rather enjoy counter-culture books with whacky
theories, it's a sort of secret vice; and often quite enjoyable to see where
they've gone wrong and try to establish why the book was written – and
published. Quite a few years ago I read one such book, most of which I could
see was incorrect. But there was one suggestion in it I've not been able to
sort out to my satisfaction, maybe because I don't know where to find the
original data. And various oddments I pick up, like the recent TV report that
large quantities of cocaine have been found in an Egyptian mummy, keep
reminding me about it. What I'd like to do is lay out the evidence claimed,
and ask if it is just plain wrong, what sources I could use to check on it, or
ask what the consensual interpretation of it all is. I have had a look around
the geology shelves in a large public library, but this cursory search hasn't
revealed much in the way of answers, and I don't really know where to look in
the local University library. So this is an 'umble request for 'elp. It is
not a disguised plug for a whacky idea. If the subject has been covered here
already, perhaps someone can guide me.
The idea is that within human prehistory – let's say before 10,000 BC and after
100,000 BC – sea level changes were so great as to reveal the ocean floors, and
that this happened perhaps several times.
When the derisive laughter has settled, could I ask that it be accepted that it
is a waste of time – it wasted a great deal of time during the 'continental
drift' controversy, as I well remember – to discuss mechanisms or their
absurdity. The only way to go forward, it seems to me, is to concentrate on
the (supposed) evidence in favour – and against. The proposed mechanism was
that the water was piled (as ice) ten miles or more high on what are now the
continents, and I can see many arguments against that – and a few in favour to
be fair. But all that IS, strictly speaking, irrelevant.
Here is the 'evidence' for comment:
1. That the Glomar Challenger brought some unusual core samples from drillings
of sea/ocean floors: anhydrites from the Mediterranean and the Gulf of Mexico,
the latter being a bit difficult to explain.
2. Publication by Columbia U of oceanic findings: prehistoric beach sand on
the slopes of the Mid Atlantic Ridge – rounded grains and pebbles suitably
graded, one such finding being now inder two miles of water, another nearly 3.5
miles down. These included (I can't keep saying 'are supposed to have')
foraminifera shells typical of shallow water. Alternating layers of such sand
and typical abyssal deposits. Mudstone. Terrestrial-type sedimentary rocks
with apparent glacial striations.
3. Limestone found when drilling (dunno who by) in the Maraianas Basin, at
20,000 feet. The suggestion that alternate layers of limestone and abyssal
deposits are common in ocean floor material, and that limestone should be
formed only in shallow water(?).
4. River (V-shaped) canyons, running down the height of the continental
shelves: the Congo River, including the statement that Dr F P Shepard of
Scripps found a 'river delta' on the ocean floor; the Hudson, the mid-ocean
canyon; others, notably W Africa.
5. A discussion of how such a hypothesis would still permit the isolation of
Australia.
6. Sunken flat-topped sea mounts at a wide variety of depths.
7. Legends of floods worldwide. Atlantis. Similarities of architecture.
Similarities of language. Isolated pockets of populations like Basques etc.
Bird migratory paths following (relatively) shallow water areas in oceans.
Dredging of terrestrial fossils from the Grand Banks(?). Sudden emergence of
Egyptian architecture and subsequent decline thereof(?). Odd customs like the
'couvade' being practiced on either side of the Atlantic. Lots of stuff like
this.
Well. First, I'd ask whether things have moved on in the past 15-20 years. I'd
like to know if there is solid evidence of continuing human existence over the
period in question in all the areas of the world not affected by glaciation,
because I think that would go against this idea – the continents would not be
nice places even if they were not iced over. I'd like to know if this evidence
is faithfully represented, and IF it is, then how it is explained. The canyons
do seem to be a problem, the only explanation of them which I found looked
suspiciously like explaining away rather than explaining. I did look at a map
of human blood-types, it didn't seem to help much either way.
I used the word 'intriguing' on the physics forum, and was dismissed by one
respondent as credulous and naive. I don't think I am, I'm just puzzled by
something I can't straighten out in my mind.
Chris /ex
In Geology there are many facts. It is always interesting how many different
people can take the same facts, learned through scientific observation and come
to totally different conclusions.
Twenty years ago nobody would have believed that the Medditerean sea
(sorry about my spelling) has repeatily dried up to the point where it was very
similiar to the Death Valley of CA. They know for a fact since its bottom has
been cored and the same evaporite minerals and surface structures can be found
in these cores. There is no other way they could have formed. People know it
has happened but they don't really know how.
Something I always remember, I call it the story of Wegner. When Wegner
first proposed the theory he called Continental drift which has since evolved
to Plate Tectonics he was laughed at and ostricized by the scientific community
of his day. Anyone who tried to teach it risk being fired or not hired at all.
Many jobs were lost by those who first championed the theory. Now practically
every Geoscientist believes it, some of whom are just as dogmatic in their
beliefs.
Todays wacky idea could be tomorrows commonly held belief.
Dear Todd,
Many thanks for your reply. Yes, I well remember the 'Drifter' controversy,
and was amused to see recently that Nature – which I despise in certain
respects – is rewriting the story as some kind of friendly debate. As a small
boy in the fifties I read all about it, saw that the continents in fact do NOT
fit together, and made a globe with the continents thus accurately represented.
They fitted very much better than the Mercator maps, of course, but I still
wince to recall the treatment I got when I eagerly displayed my little treasure
at my school.
None of which proves ANYTHING about the sea-level idea. With that I am at the
same point I was with "cold fusion" years ago. That took me years to decide
on, because there was a clear clash between logic and my knowledge of physics –
which beats my knowledge of geology hands down. I did have one University year
on it as a 'half subject', so I can at least (just about) follow the jargon,
but that was thirty years or more ago!
On this one I'm floundering because I just don't know where to start looking. I
have pretty much decided to try to get to the bottom – haha – of this one, and
it will probably take me years to decide. I'd hoped to get some leads to
sources, or some info of substance, that might save me quite a lot of time.
The whole thing may just be a tissue of nonsense and distortions. I'd just
like to make my own mind up, and without a great deal of raw data I can't do
that. For a start, is it true that the Gulf of Mexico has evaporites too?
Chris
Encouraged by your words, I decided to jump in at the deep end and spent a
happy hour in th U Lib. Fascinating, this clearly has Huge Hobby Potential!
Obviously a quick look is no basis for comment, but that's not going to stop
me. Sources (unnoted) were one coffee-table book, one about sea-mounts, some
bound papers on contintal margins, and sight of the Glomar reports – not looked
at yet, they fill shelves.
So, it seems the sea mounts of the Pacific are a sunken Hawaii, kms down. But
they say that Cretaceous fossils are there and no coral. Must check when coral
first appeared. Quoted as having been a pre-Plate Tectonics problem, solved by
same. Implication: they're very old and probably not relevant. Fine, scratch
them (for now). Only one other thought, do people admit to problems only after
there's an answer…?
The coffee table book (sneer) had a diagram of the Atlantic Ocean as if
drained. Very strange, the canyons were far more dramatic than I'd expected.
Especially one running from Gibraltar most of the way to the Mid Atlantic
Ridge. Stranger still was that the diagram was annotated with all the features
described except the one second most dramatic after the M I R – the canyons.
The actual papers with sonar raw data were extraordinary! These canyons run
right down the shelf off Africa – the only area I checked. They are very
steep-walled, some have STEPPED walls, some are FILLED. Yes, there IS what
looks just like a delta at the end of the Congo canyon, right on the abyssal
floor. The papers were excellent sources of data, with very sketchy
conclusions, I like that. Any possible origins of the canyons were not
mentioned, though I've only scratched the surface of the papers.
Conclusions? Well, obviously none. But I'm far more interested than I was, it
is one of those cases where "it's obvious at first glance that the Atlantic
basin was once nearly all dry land" haha. No, of course it isn't, but there is
something very strange indeed about all this. Unless somebody knows better?
Great fun, anybody want to join the hunt?
Chris