This is a follow up posting to Younger Dryas -The Rest of the Story!
Guest post by Don J. Easterbrook
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University.
The Younger Dryas was a period of rapid cooling in the late Pleistocene 12,800 to 11,500 calendar years ago. It followed closely on the heels of a dramatically abrupt warming that brought the last Ice Age to a close (17,500 calendar years ago), lasted for about 1,300 years, then ended as abruptly as it started. The cause of these remarkably sudden climate changes has puzzled geologists and climatologists for decades and despite much effort to find the answer, can still only be considered enigmatic.
The Younger Dryas interruption of the global warming that resulted in the abrupt, wholesale melting of the huge late Pleistocene ice sheets was first discovered in European pollen studies about 75 years ago. Terrestrial plants and pollen indicate that arboreal forests were replaced by tundra vegetation during a cool climate. This cool period was named after the pale yellow flower Dryas octopetella, an arctic wildflower typical of cold, open, Arctic environments. The Younger Dryas return to a cold, glacial climate was first considered to be a regional event restricted to Europe, but later studies have shown that it was a world-wide event. The problem became even more complicated when oxygen isotope data from ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland showed not only the Younger Dryas cooling, but several other shorter cooling/warming events, now known as Dansgaard-Oerscher events.
The Younger Dryas is the longest and coldest of several very abrupt climatic changes that took place near the end of the late Pleistocene. Among these abrupt changes in climate were: (1) sudden global warming 14,500 years ago (Fig. 1) that sent the immense Pleistocene ice sheets into rapid retreat, (2) several episodes of climatic warming and cooling between ~14,400 and 12,800 years ago, (3) sudden cooling 12,800 years ago at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, and (4) ~11,500 years ago, abrupt climatic warming of up to 10º C in just a few decades. Perhaps the most precise record of late Pleistocene climate changes is found in the ice core stratigraphy of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) and the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). The GRIP ice core is especially important because the ages of the ice at various levels in the core has been determined by the counting down of annual layers in the ice, giving a very accurate chronolgoy, and climatic fluctuations have been determined by measurement of oxygen isotope ratios. Isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland ice core suggests that Greenland was more than~10°C colder during the Younger Dryas and that the sudden warming of 10° ±4°C that ended the Younger Dryas occurred in only about 40 to 50. years.
Figure 1. Temperature fluctuations over the past 17,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas. The late Pleistocene cold glacial climate that built immense ice sheets terminated suddenly about 14,500 years ago (1), causing glaciers to melt dramatically. About 12,800 years ago, after about 2000 years of fluctuating climate (2-4), temperatures plunged suddenly (5) and remained cool for 1300 years (6). About 11,500 years ago, the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended (7).
Radiocarbon and cosmogenic dating of glacial moraines in regions all over the world and abrupt changes in oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores indicate that the Younger Dryas cooling was globally synchronous. Evidence of Younger Dryas advance of continental ice sheets is reported from the Scandinavian ice sheet, the Laurentide ice sheet in eastern North America, the Cordilleran ice sheet in western North America, and the Siberian ice sheet in Russia. Alpine and ice cap glaciers also responded to the abrupt Younger Dryas cooling in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, e.g., many places in the Rocky Mts. of the U.S. and Canada, the Cascade Mts. of Washington, the European Alps, the Southern Alps of New Zealand, and the Andes Mts. in Patagonia of South America.
Figure 2. Temperature fluctuations over the past 15,000 years showing the abrupt cooling during the Younger Dryas and other warming and cooling periods, the Oldest Dryas (cool), Bölllng (warm), Older Dryas (cool), Allerød (warm), InterAllerød (cool), and Younger Dryas (cool).
Figure 3. Oxygen isotope record from the Greenland ice core showing an abrupt temperature drop 12,800 years ago, 1300 years of cool climate, and sudden warming 11,500 years ago.
The Younger Dryas had multiple glacial advances and retreats
The Younger Dryas was not just a single climatic event. Late Pleistocene climatic warming and cooling not only occurred before and after the YD, but also within it. All three major Pleistocene ice sheets, the Scandinavian, Laurentide, and Cordilleran, experienced double moraine-building episodes, as did a large number of alpine glaciers. Multiple YD moraines of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet have long been documented and a vast literature exists. The Scandinavian Ice Sheet readvanced during the YD and built two extensive end moraines across southern Finland, the central Swedish moraines, and the Ra moraines of southwestern Norway(Fig. 4). 14C dates indicate they were separated by about 500 years.
Figure 4. Double Younger Dryas moraines of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet.
Among the first multiple YD moraines to be recognized were the Loch Lomond moraines of the Scotish Highlands. Alpine glaciers and icefields in Britain readvanced or re-formed during the YD and built extensive moraines at the glacier margins. The largest YD icefield at this time was the Scotish Highland glacier complex, but smaller alpine glaciers occurred in the Hebrides and Cairngorms of Scotland, in the English Lake District, and in Ireland. The Loch Lomond moraines consist of multiple moraines. Radiocarbon dates constrain the age of the Loch Lomond moraines between 12.9 and 11.5 calendar years ago.
Multiple Younger Dryas moraines of alpine glaciers also occur throughout the world, e.g., the European Alps, the Rocky Mts., Alaska, the Cascade Range, the Andes, the New Zealand Alps, and elsewhere.
Figure 5. Double Younger Dryas moraines at Titcomb Lakes in the Wind River Range of Wyoming.
Implications
The multiple nature of YD moraines in widely separated areas of the world and in both hemispheres indicates that the YD consisted of more than a single climatic event and these occurred virtually simultaneously worldwide. Both ice sheets and alpine glaciers were sensitive to the multiple YD phases. The GISP2 ice core shows two peaks within the YD that match the glacial record. The absence of a time lag between the N and S Hemispheres glacial fluctuations precludes an ocean cause and is not consistent with the North Atlantic Deep Ocean Water hypothesis for the cause of the Younger Dryas, nor with a cosmic impact or volcanic origin.
Both 14C and 10Be production rates in the upper atmosphere changed during the YD. 14C and 10Be are isotopes produced by collision of incoming radiation with atoms in the upper atmosphere. The change in their production rates means that the Younger Dryas was associated with changes in the amount of radiation entering the Earth’s atmosphere, leading to the intriguing possibility that the YD was caused by solar fluctuations.
Why the Younger Dryas is important
What can we learn from all this? The ice core isotope data were hugely significant because they showed that the Younger Dryas, as well as the other late Pleistocene warming and cooling events could not possibly have been caused by slow, Croll-Milankovitch orbital forcing, which occurs over many tens of thousands of years. The ice core isotope data thus essentially killed the Croll-Milankovitch theory as the cause of the Ice Ages.
In an attempt to save the Croll-Milankovitch theory, Broecker and Dention (1990) published a paper postulating that large amounts of fresh water discharged into the north Atlantic about 12,800 years ago when retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet allowed drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz to spill eastward into the Atlantic Ocean. They proposed that this large influx of fresh water might have stopped the formation of descending, higher-density water in the North Atlantic, thereby interrupting deep-water currents that distribute large amounts of heat globally and initiating a short-term return to glacial conditions. If indeed that was the case, then the Younger Dryas would have been initiated in the North Atlantic and propagated from there to the Southern Hemisphere and the rest of the world. Since that would take time, it means that the YD should be 400-1000 years younger in the Southern Hemisphere and Pacific areas than in the Northern Hemisphere. However, numerous radiocarbon and cosmogenic dates of the Younger Dryas all over the world indicate the cooling was globally synchronous. Thus, the North Atlantic deep current theory is not consistent with the chronology of the Younger Dryas.
The climatic fluctuations before and after the Younger Dryas, as well as the fluctuations within it, and the duration of these changes are not consistent with a single event cause of the YD. Neither cosmic impact or volcanic eruptions could produce the abrupt, multiple climatic changes that occurred during the late Pleistocene.
###
Related articles
- Younger Dryas -The Rest of the Story! (wattsupwiththat.com)
- New evidence of Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts? (skepticalscience.com)
- Study Finds New Evidence Supporting Theory of Extraterrestrial Impact (sott.net)
- The Great Ice Meltdown and Rising Seas: Lessons for Tomorrow (giss.nasa.gov)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Exactly, that’s been my problem with the data too. However, if the variation is greater than could reasonably be explained by depostion rate changes, then we might infer another causative agent exists. The ratio of 10Be or 26Al to a non-cosmogenic substance similarly deposited in snow might be used to normalize the production of cosmogenic isotopes, possibly U in dust.
Looks like someone is measuring isotopes of U and other non-cosmogenic isotopes in dust from ice cores.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rojailal/science.pdf
The variation in the Earth’s magnetic field may also influence cosmic ray effects.
http://www.uvm.edu/cosmolab/people/larsenp/larsenms_proposal.pdf
Well, all production will eventually be deposited but I understand that the concentration one discovers at any particular point in time is going to depend on deposition rate at that time which poses a but of a chicken/egg problem. There can be some decoupling between deposition and production but I would not guess by very much (probably by no more than a decade at most) which is pretty small when we are looking on millennium timescales. And local deposition can vary from place to place but overall these 10Be fluctuations seems to indicate global changes. While it is likely we could have regional changes in deposition due to regional climate changes, these changes seem to be global. I mean, would we see a GLOBAL increase in rainfall to increase deposition? It would seem to me that at any given place when weather patterns change some places get wet and other places get dry.
In other words, I would think that on longer global time scales, production would be what is driving the signal the most and deposition would be seen as local variation on the overall global regime.
To further on the interpretation problems, if you would blank your Younger Dryas knowledge completely, erase all data and start reloading paleoclimatal data and information, looking at all the forests that got replaced with grass lands, spruce replaced by pine, thriving mammoth populations in high arctic Siberia, etc, etc, After all that, the conclusion would have to be that climate turned “continental” on a large scale, with hot and bone dry summers and cold winters.
And now you bring this information to the ice cores where the sudden drop in isotope ratios suggest a ten degree temperature you know that something is clearly wrong. However a lot of the mysteries of the Younger dryas would never have been a mystery should the isotopes have been interpreted correctly, going back to the schoolbanks and scrutinze the water cycle with the fractination processes.
So one might wonder if the researched did not cross check the isotopes to other proxies and data. Most certainly they did and when they did it, in the seventies and eighties of the previous century, and sure enough the year count in the ice cores seemed to match the carbon dating and there were many glacial advances that showed similar carbon dates with the counted years in the ice core. So it seemed a perfect match. However nobody was really aware of the calibration problems of carbon dating in that time, due to many variations that had yet to be discovered. We know all those problems now and as a consequence the carbon dates around the Younger Dryas are pushed back for some 2000 years, and so do all the glaciation dates. Hence all those glacial readvances did not occur in the Younger Dryas but in the Bolling Allerod.
Also the mystery interval of Denton et al 2006 (17.5 ka – 14.5 ka), mentioned in my previous, is no longer a mystery interval if you realize that all the carbon dates associated with warming are also pushed back a few thousand years. For instance go back to my earlier quoted Hubberten et 2004
http://epic.awi.de/9052/1/Hub2004a.pdf
Goto fig 6 on page 7 (1339) and see that transition from Late Weichselian LW I to LW II from cool summers to dry and warm summers happened at 15 ka BP in carbon years. Now Lo and Behold, this seems to match the onset of the Bolling Allerod exactly. But the tragedy is that we have to calibrate that date first using INTCAL09 then we get to 18 Ka, which is even before the start of the mystery interval, confirming that the isotopes in the ice cores are lousy paleothermometers and the real story of the Mystery interval and the Younger Dryas is somewhat different.
The YD was not globally synchronous.
John another says:
June 19, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Dennis Cox
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Since childhood (50 ya), I have been unable to look at our own moon and think that Earth escaped the sources of all those impacts. Or what might be the shotgun effect of thousands of objects like ones that seem to just be missing us lately? Can you model the effect of a thousand 500 meter rock or nickle-iron objects striking in one pass? Los Alamos would seem well suited for such.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I too have pondered on the craters of the Moon and Mars, to think that we have escaped them would be akin to claiming Divine Intervention.
The difference surely is our atmosphere, most never reach the surface to leave impact sites, but the airbursts can still have catastrophic results for any living thing. That they only happened in ancient epochs is belied by the record of the ancient mythologies and archaeological records, man made and implied by fused sand and building stones, which isotope records and unexplained layers of carbonaceous material and frozen animal and plant “muck” thousands of feet deep only reinforce.
ferd berple: you seem to have sucked in quite a few people who don’t understand irony.
ferd berple says:
June 19, 2012 at 11:32 pm
The Tunguska event of 1908 is irrefutable evidence of this. It also shows these cosmic events are likely much more common than previously believed. Apart from the destruction, they leave no record to suggest a cosmic origin.
Drop a 60-ton bolide on top of a mile of ice and you won’t find any crater after the ice melts. You’ll get a whale of a lot of water vapor, though…
See this paper ref the effects of cosmic rays on climate
[1] Scherer, K., H. Fichtner, T. Borrmann, J. Beer, L. Desorgher, E. Flukiger, H. J. Fahr, S. E. S. Ferreira, U. W. Langner, M. S. Potgieter, B. Heber, J. Masarik, N. J. Shaviv, and J. Veizer (2006) Interstellar-terrestrial relations: Variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate. Space Science Reviews 127:327-+ doi:10.1007/s11214-006-9126-6.
One thing that has not been looked at (as far as I know) is the possible influence of changes in the biosphere on climate over the last few million years. In particular, the change from forest domination to grassland. As well as the direct effect this might have had on climate, it has also led to a great increase in diatom populations because of increased nutrient runoff into the oceans.
Research in this area seems to have focused on the influence of climate change on the biosphere, rather than the other way round.
Interesting and good to see that over the past 10,000 years temperatures have been up to 2.5C warmer than today for 95%+ of the time. Makes Gore look a fool and the alarmist claim that a temperature rise of over 2C will instigate a tipping point.
Thanks for the data.
ferd berple says:
June 19, 2012 at 11:16 pm
“Otherwise, we are all doomed to die within the next 100 years.”
Yep, life is a bitch and nobody gets out alive. However, since more old people live in Florida and Florida has warm weather one could conclude that warm weather increases human life span.
RE: Really Big Ice Comet
Suppose a big comet of ice descended upon the north pole. In instant the Artic was blast frozen. The mammoths were quick frozen in their tracks.
A comet of pure ice would leave no residues. Any evidence for such a comet?
***
feet2thefire says:
June 19, 2012 at 9:08 pm
***
Thanks for the entertaining & informative post. I agree, the sudden global changes actually, IMO, support an impact scenario. The impact of Comet Levy-Shoemaker on Jupiter produced earth-sized fireballs/clouds. So a sufficient impact (or numerous, smaller, extended impacts) is going to surround the whole earth quickly in a debris/dust cloud, even away from the direct effects.
This is a test.
Harold Pierce Jr says:
June 20, 2012 at 5:00 am
Suppose a big comet of ice descended upon the north pole. In instant the Arctic was blast frozen. The mammoths were quick frozen in their tracks.
A comet of pure ice would leave no residues. Any evidence for such a comet?
According calculations (mine) based on the objects in the The MPC Orbit (MPCORB) Database, the average top speed of all objects is 25.15 km/s with a sigma (standard deviation) of 3.54 km/s. This means that most objects/minor planets will be traveling less than 32.23 km/s. (97%)
The low end is in the 21 km/s range.
What do you supposed will happen when an object, made of ice, hit’s the nice soft atmosphere of Earth at somewhere between 21 and 32 kilometers per second? At that speed, the atmosphere is harder than a brick wall. Much of your ice is going to ablate off, thermal and shock stress will start breaking it up. If it’s massive enough, some of it might be able to punch through all the way to the surface… but “blast freezing” is probably out of the question.
http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/MPCORB.html
Harold Pierce Jr says:
Nah, Even if it were made of pure water ice, a big chunk of something would still be subject to all the normal kinetic energy physics of a big impact. Hydrothermal explosive forces might play a role in the impact of such an object. But since you’d get temps hotter than the surface of the sun at the point of impact, instant freezing in the impact zone would most certainly not be a part of the picture.
No. Although the chemistry of the remaining Taurids might give us a clue of what kind of stuff produced the impact markers in the Younger Dryas Boundary.
Comet 2P/Encke is the largest known remaining fragment of the Taurids. And in 2003 NASA’s Astrobiology Institute did an investigation of the composition of comet 2P/Encke at infrared wavelengths.
Project Investigators:
M. Mumma, M. DiSanti, N. Dello Russo, B. Bonev, K. Magee-Sauer, and E. Gibb
Project Progress:
The composition of comet 2P/Encke was investigated at infrared wavelengths. Six nights of observing time was awarded at the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility and the W.M. Keck Observatory in November, 2003, for this Jupiter-family comet of probable Kuiper-belt origin. Long-slit spectra from the facility instruments CSHELL (Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF)) and NIRSPEC (Keck) featured both high spectral dispersion and high spatial resolution about the nucleus. H2O, C2H6 , CH3 OH, HCN, and C2H2 were detected (the symmetric hydrocarbons for the first time in Encke), and production rates and rotational temperatures were determined. Rotational analysis of H2O and C2H6 suggested very cold rotational distributions for coma gases (T rot ~ 20 — 30K). Relative abundances for C2H6 , CH3OH, HCN, and C2H2 with respect to water were close to those typically seen in Oort cloud comets, while the abundance of hypervolatile CH 4 was severely depleted. This represents the most detailed study of a comet of probable Kuiper-belt origin with high-resolution ground-based infrared spectroscopy, and serves as a model for future studies of faint comets.
Climate is a long term feature , a response to many over lapping cycles and inputs. These include catastrophic events which can magnify or reduce cyclic events. Other events such as plate tectonics resulting in the closure of the Panama gap between North and South America, also effect climate
Classic catastrophic examples being the KT event and the extinction of the dinosaurs. Along with the eruption of the super volcano mount Toba, which nearly caused the extinction of humanity.
The YD event whilst looking similar to other events does have a multitude of other evidence pointing to a cosmic event being its cause. also notice the similarity with the YD and the Toba event, that both seemed to cause a 1.000 year cooling.
Taking a bold step, if the YD resulted in the tearing out of the Grand Canyon, we have a similar volume of ejecta as the Toba event and a resultant similar 1,000 year cooling period. Evidence for ejecta dumps has been posted here
It makes you wonder how easy it will be to stop the advance of glaciers, next time an ice age hits.
What is all the fuss?
“This climate modeling experiment was performed using the GISS ModelE general circulation coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by zeroing out all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Doing this removed the radiative forcing that sustains the temperature support for water vapor and cloud feedbacks, causing rapid condensation and precipitation of water vapor from the atmosphere, collapsing the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and plunging the Earth into an icebound state.
The scope of the climate impact becomes apparent in just 10 years. During the first year alone, global mean surface temperature falls by 4.6 °C. After 50 years, the global temperature stands at -21 °C, a decrease by 34.8 °C. Atmospheric water vapor is at ~10%”
Clearly, the non condensing greenhouse gasses were removed from the atmosphere at the beginning of YD, leaving all those massive feedbacks sitting on their hands; and put back at the end.
Wink.
the Gothenburg geomagnetic field excursion (13 000–12 000 years ago) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358947790031X
may also be of interest
Bill Tuttle says:
Hmmm…
Something like 1.1 billion tons of material is thought to have collided with this fair world of ours during the breakup of the Taurid Progenitor. Most of it was probably dust, and sand grain size. But there would have been some good sized chunks too.
Check out this image of the cluster of fragments Comet Linear turned into when it broke up. [Link] And Linear’s a pretty typical example of a fragmented comet from the Taurid Complex.
Since 20 tons is roughly equal to to one semi truck load, 60 tons isn’t really a very big bolide at all. How ‘bout a large cluster of a few thousand 60-ton bolides into a mile of ice? You’d get much more violence, but still no crater. What if the waters of lake Agassiz didn’t need an outlet at all because it all went up into the atmosphere as steam?
I’ll bet it’d rain all over the northern hemisphere non-stop for weeks. Heck, you might even get enough water vapor in the atmosphere to make for forty days, and forty nights of torrential rains.
It puts a whole new spin on the idea of a meltwater pulse.
Just to be brief: I think both Steve Garcia and Dennis Cox are both right on the mark at to the comet influence at 12,900 BP, and hence the cause of the YD. It is interesting too, that the cold interval of 8200 BP has many of the same signatures (though on a much smaller scale) as the Younger Dryas. Also, in response to Monty; As far as my delving into the synchronicity of the YD world-wide is concerned, I think a very good case can be made for this as real. Consider that the highest resolution ice core, Taylor Dome experienced the cold of the Younger Dryas. Admittedly, there is conflicting evidence in both New Zealand and also South America (higher latitudes) as whether the climate cooled or warmed. However, because the New Zealand and most South American studies are based upn glacial movements (known to be extremely difficult to determine the climate), then a much stronger canse can be made for world-wide synchronicity (if at all forcing When examining the interior of Antarctica ice cores cannot be accurately discerened because of their very poor resolution. So we are (with a bit of a stretch to be sure), but a valid scenarion nonetheless. And that is the idea of a sudden world-wide cold interval that may have set in a matter of years. Rod Chilton.
feet2thefire – In a uniformitarian-only world, this conclusion is warranted. But as Stephen J Gould determined in paleontology, evolution isn’t one big slow, creeping gradualism.
= = = = = = = =
I’m not sure if, in reality, a school of gradualism in geology exists, just as there is no school of pure gradualism in evolution, and there never was. In order to have an argument with the world, Gould had to misrepresent the primary literature, confident that his audience wouldn’t check it. In fact, “punctuated” evolution was first brought to you by … Charles Darwin:
leftturnandre says:
June 20, 2012 at 12:55 am
===================================
However improbably, everyone in the room just got a little dumber. Thanks.
We’re not saying Milankovitch Cycles caused the Younger Dryas–those who know what M Cycles are fully understand the times scales are different. But again, correlation between June insolation at 65N latitude with O18 is undeniable–with the lag. Mystified at the deniers.
One side of the moon is full of craters; the other side isn’t. The “isn’t” side is younger, and the contrast illustrates the evolution of the solar system from very dangerous to not so dangerous. The big planets have been sweeping up the planetoids for eons; all we have to worry about now is the Ort Cloud.
50 year floods don’t happen every year. 100 million year catastrophes aren’t very likely in any given 20k year period (one chance in 5000). Extinction causing events are accordingly rare, unlikely in the lifespan of a given species. That is, a species is much more likely to to go extinct by emerging competetion, or it will evolve into a different but similar species, gradually of course.
The presumed K/T catastrophe wiped out about 90% of identified species; we are reduced to speculation as to why those spared were spared. By being fossorial? By surviving as eggs which which when hatched needed no parental care? And the destruction didn’t discriminate by latitude or longitude.
Modern humans on the other hand are wiping out species right and left, and the process didn’t start with the Industrial Revolution but with the mesolithic revolution. Seemingly simultaneously with the arrival of humans in the New World species began to disappear. Hardly a coincidence of 1/5000.
The claim that a comet wiped them out leaves much to be explained. I haven’t heard yet whether the comet is supposed to have changed the climate and the climate did them in, or whether the comet killed off the big animals more immediately. In either case there are plenty of problems to address. Why did only the giant species disappear, leaving bear, bison, deer, etc., unaffected? Can a single species of small mammal, reptile, or amphibian be shown to have suffered, as 90% did with the K/T event? If climate is invoked, how do we explain the survival of mammoths in various islands, some far to the north? The scenario fits hunting extermination to a tee. Climate comes in a distant second. Meteoric extinction, even if they did leave uncommon remains of a sort we might expect every 10 or 20 thousand years, remains a 1/5000 likelihood. You have not yet begun to make your argument scientific. –AGF
really, some interesting thoughts are expressed here,
Henry@ur momisuglyDennis Cox
yes, I was reasonably sure of that legend of the big flood 11-12k BC being correct because it is universally told all over the world, it could well have happened as you describe but I do not rule out other possibilities. Fact is that the mammoths were caught by the cold in their tracks, they simply had no way to escape the cold. Analyses showed that the meat froze within minutes from one end to the other end of the mammoth.
Henry@ur momisuglyKhwarizima
It seems there were periods that the eggs of existing animals became exposed to radiation (from atomic bomb- like explosions) leading to different species.
Like I said, when man plays with radiation you get bad mutations (Hiroshima) in the next generation of children, but when God (“the unknown from the outside”) plays with eggs you get, ehhh, ….. us……eventually …..
Henry @ur momisugly Don Easterbrook
I would so much appreciate it of you could tell me what you think of my analysis that global cooling has already started…
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here