Claim: Trigger for Earth's last big freeze identified

From the University of Massachusetts at Amherst

A new model of flood waters from melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and large glacial lakes along its edge that covered much of North America from the Arctic south to New England over 13,000 years ago, shows the meltwater flowed northwest into the Arctic first. This weakened deep ocean circulation and led to Earth’s last major cold period. A new model of flood waters from melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and large glacial lakes along its edge that covered much of North America from the Arctic south to New England over 13,000 years ago, shows the meltwater flowed northwest into the Arctic first. This weakened deep ocean circulation and led to Earth’s last major cold period. Credit: Alan Condron, UMass Amherst

AMHERST, Mass. – For more than 30 years, climate scientists have debated whether flood waters from melting of the enormous Laurentide Ice Sheet, which ushered in the last major cold episode on Earth about 12,900 years ago, flowed northwest into the Arctic first, or east via the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to weaken ocean thermohaline circulation and have a frigid effect on global climate.

Now University of Massachusetts Amherst geoscientist Alan Condron, with Peter Winsor at the University of Alaska, using new, high-resolution global ocean circulation models, report the first conclusive evidence that this flood must have flowed north into the Arctic first down the Mackenzie River valley. They also show that if it had flowed east into the St. Lawrence River valley, Earth’s climate would have remained relatively unchanged.

“This episode was the last time the Earth underwent a major cooling, so understanding exactly what caused it is very important for understanding how our modern-day climate might change in the future,” says Condron of UMass Amherst’s Climate System Research Center. Findings appear in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Events leading up to the sharp climate-cooling period known as the Younger Dryas, or more familiarly as the “Big Freeze,” unfolded after glacial Lake Agassiz, at the southern edge of the Laurentide ice sheet covering Hudson Bay and much of the Canadian Arctic, catastrophically broke through an ice dam and rapidly dumped thousands of cubic kilometers of fresh water into the ocean.

This massive influx of frigid fresh water injected over the surface of the ocean is assumed to have halted the sinking of very dense, saltier, colder water in the North Atlantic that drives the large-scale ocean circulation, the thermohaline circulation, that transports heat to Europe and North America. The weakening of this circulation caused by the flood resulted in the dramatic cooling of North America and Europe.

Using their high resolution, global, ocean-ice circulation model that is 10 to 20 times more powerful than previously attainable, Condron and Winsor compared how meltwater from the two different drainage outlets was delivered to the sinking regions in the North Atlantic. They found the original hypothesis proposed in 1989 by Wally Broecker of Columbia University suggesting that Lake Aggasiz drained into the North Atlantic down the St. Lawrence River would have weakened the thermohaline circulation by less than 15 percent.

Condron and Winsor say this level of weakening is unlikely to have accounted for the 1,000-year cold climate event that followed the meltwater flood. Meltwater from the St. Lawrence River actually ends up almost 1,900 miles (3,000 km) south of the deep water formation regions, too far south to have any significant impact on the sinking of surface waters, which explains why the impact on the thermohaline circulation is so minor.

By contrast, Condron and Winsor’s model shows that when the meltwater first drains into the Arctic Ocean, narrow coastal boundary currents can efficiently deliver it to the deep water formation regions of the sub-polar north Atlantic, weakening the thermohaline circulation by more than 30 percent. They conclude that this scenario, showing meltwater discharged first into the Arctic rather than down the St. Lawrence valley, is “more likely to have triggered the Younger Dryas cooling.”

Condron and Windor’s model runs on one of the world’s top supercomputers at the National Energy Research Science Computing Center in Berkeley, Calif. The authors say, “With this higher resolution modeling, our ability to capture narrow ocean currents dramatically improves our understanding of where the fresh water may be going.”

Condron adds, “The results we obtain are only possible by using a much higher computational power available with faster computers. Older models weren’t powerful enough to model the different pathways because they contained too few data points to capture smaller-scale, faster-moving coastal currents.”

“Our results are particularly relevant for how we model the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets now and in the future. “It is apparent from our results that climate scientists are artificially introducing fresh water into their models over large parts of the ocean that freshwater would never have reached. In addition, our work points to the Arctic as a primary trigger for climate change. This is especially relevant considering the rapid changes that have been occurring in this region in the last 10 years.”

###

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
gandada_gudi

Awesome! This is very interesting. Thx for posting Anthony…

ColdinOz

If the Antarctic was actually melting.

Brian H

In addition, our work points to the Arctic as a primary trigger for climate change. This is especially relevant considering the rapid changes that have been occurring in this region in the last 10 years.

Uh-huh. And the modern equivalent giant freezing cold melt-lake is where, exactly?

I just wrote a model that proved global cooling happened because the Paul Bunyan blew his icy breath eastward. With all the factors I considered, it’s guaranteed to be 99.9 percent accurate.

pyromancer76

This article is one of the major reasons why your readership grows and grows, Anthony. Real meat for those in the know to debate before our very eyes. Excellent peer review. Thank you; thank you. Now, might a “field” of comet strikes have been part of the reason for the extraordinary melting…or was he cause something more intrinsic to Earth systems and cycles?

I take exception to the words “conclusive evidence” when referring to a computer model. A model (even a “high resolution” one) may be very illuminating but conclusive evidence means something else entirely.

Asmilwho

“report the first conclusive evidence ….”
The output of a computer model is not evidence, sorry.
Evidence would be actually getting out of the office, going to the Mackenzie river valley and digging up some rocks.

Katherine

The results of model runs are “proof”? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. I need fossil evidence of any such drainage of meltwater before buying their claims.

ianl8888

Brian H has the right question:
“And the modern equivalent giant freezing cold melt-lake is where, exactly?”
The article is interesting, but Brian H’s question is exactly pertinent

Chants

Interesting read.
Back in June of this year Don Easterbrook made a quest post on WUWT challenging the single origin/North Atlantic origin of the Younger Dryas.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/#more-65956

I am completely lost here. 13000 years ago was about the time that the last glacial ended and the Holocene inter-glacial started. What is this “big freeze”? The “big melt” I would have thought.

Interesting… I wonder how they explain the rather sizable difference in the deep channel to the continental shelf edge for the two river systems…
http://i50.tinypic.com/29or0ib.png

tty

Very shaky stuff actually.
a) It is only an unproven hypothesis that Younger Dryas was caused by the draining of Lake Agassiz.
b) It is hard to see how fresh water draining down the Mackenzie valley could end up southwest of Greenland, “Narrow coastal boundary currents” seem highly unlikely since the straits through the Parry Archipelago were still blocked by ice (whales could not get through at the time, so it’s hard to imagine massive amounts of water doing it). Even today driftwood on SW Greenland comes from Siberia, not Canada.
c) Just what makes them think that deepwater formation must have occurred in the exact place where it does today? Given that there were still massive icecaps in North America it seems quite likely that it was further south.
I agree with Asmilwho, get out into the Mackenzie valley and find some evidence. This theory should be much easier to prove or disprove than drainage through the St Lawrence valley, where the complex history of the Great Lakes and the Champlain Sea obscures the evidence. The Mackenzie valley has been above sea-level since the Younger Dryas and there has been no major floods or drainage changes. Evidence of a massive flood event should be quite easy to find, perhaps even visible on satellite images.

David, UK

Mark Luedtke says:
November 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm
I just wrote a model that proved global cooling happened because the Paul Bunyan blew his icy breath eastward. With all the factors I considered, it’s guaranteed to be 99.9 percent accurate.

I just did the same and replicated Prof Mark’s results.

old construction worker

“Mark Luedtke says:
November 5, 2012 at 10:12 pm
I just wrote a model that proved global cooling happened because the Paul Bunyan blew his icy breath eastward. With all the factors I considered, it’s guaranteed to be 99.9 percent accurate.”
You forgot to add: No you can’t V & V my program.

stephen richards

That is so flaky it makes my puff pastry look like shortbread.

phlogiston

They’re preparing the ground for a “look – global warming is causing global cooling” argument. Expect it within the next 1-2 years.

When are we going to see models proving UFO and their visit…. Taking into factor all the crazy people claiming all sort of things…. Signed by Simon, awake by a local earthquake! at 4:06am north of Montreal.

Scott

Yet another computer model. I’m guessing most of today’s active scientists grew up playing Sim City. They’ve moved on to more expensive computers and real money.

Robertvdl

The modeling was done with much lower sea level and a closed Bering strait ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beringia_land_bridge-noaagov.gif

Dave

Bigger faster computers, ‘better’ models …unfortunately same old GIGO (but quicker)
First the melt then the freeze – CAGW is whatever they say it is.

Luther Wu

stephen richards says:
November 6, 2012 at 12:43 am
That is so flaky it makes my puff pastry look like shortbread.
_____________________
You get the thread Gold Star, next to your name.

AngusPangus

I see what they did here.
Freshwater draining through St Lawrence cannot cause the Younger Dryas, so they’ve gone, “OK, where else can we dump all this freshwater that COULD cause it? AHA! The Mackenzie! That could work!!!” With no qualitative facts to support the hypothesis.
If that’s right, this is science fiction. Not science.

HelmutU

It’ s always the same: they use computer- models and we should believe in them. But if you write down the conservation equations for hydrodynamics for one liquid and these equations are then exrtemely reduced, it is impossible even for small space areas and short time intervals to find numerical solutions.

Ian Blanchard

OK, the model has generated a potential hypothesis – now go out and see if there is any evidence in the real world to support or disprove the model output.
Just remember that models cannot ‘prove’ or ‘show’ anything about what actually happened, at the very most they can produce an output consistent with observations.

Still a modeled scenario so I question it. No real evidence, like sedimentary core data, which would be fairly easy to collect and fairly decisive, and added to the paper. Also I was under the impression that the Younger Dryas was a global event not confined to Europe and N. America.
There is a complaint that kids in the UK are not doing practical science in the lab but using computer learning. Some can’t even turn on a bunsen burner. Sounds like these people had the same teaching.
Science is a practical subject and needs hands on experiment to learn not a computer.

Given the present day topography, isn’t it more likely that Lake Agassiz breached to the north following the Red River (current day boundary river between MN and ND and flows north into Manitoba) into Lake Winnipeg and then Hudson Bay?

Models can’t prove anything–they can only show what might be possible if they include all relevant factors accurately and if all of the assumptions that are built into a model are in fact true. This model assumes that the Younger Dryas was caused by changes in ocean circulation rather than by solar variation or some other process, so perhaps it might be wise to look at real-world data before making this initial assumption. As Chants points out, in June I posted data challenging this assumption.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/#more-65956
In this short article, you will see strong evidence that the deep ocean current theory of the cause of the Younger Dryas doesn’t work because the sudden, virtually simultaneous, global climate change doesn’t allow a lag effect between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (a prerequisite for this theory to work). Therefore, any model based on the initial assumption that the Younger Dryas was caused by changes in deep ocean currents is doomed to failure.

tty

Katphiche says:
“Given the present day topography, isn’t it more likely that Lake Agassiz breached to the north following the Red River (current day boundary river between MN and ND and flows north into Manitoba) into Lake Winnipeg and then Hudson Bay?”
No. Hudson Bay was the center of the Laurentide icecap at the time.

DirkH

Climate models are still just means for story telling.
computing power continues to explode, giving even the lowliest minion in the CO2AGW-scientific complex access to hundreds of years of global simulation, so they will retell and rewrite the entire history of the planet with their models.
This could usher in an age of Darkness for the geosciences.

Bob Layson

So their computer model has given them a hypothesis. Now the task is to look for real world physical evidence to test the hypothesis through attempted refutation. Does no one read Popper any more?

MattN

MODELS ARE NOT EVIDENCE!!!!

Gail Combs

Chris Schoneveld says: @ November 5, 2012 at 11:26 pm
I am completely lost here. 13000 years ago was about the time that the last glacial ended and the Holocene inter-glacial started. What is this “big freeze”? ….
_______________________________
The big freeze is the the Younger Dryas. You can see it on this temperature/snow accumulation graph: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/alley20001.gif?w=640
WUWT articles on the Younger Dryas:
New evidence of Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact
Younger Dryas -The Rest of the Story!
“We don’t believe the ice cores can be interpreted purely as a signal of temperature’”
Hope that helps.

johanna

Have to concur with comments above – it’s just a hypothesis, and needs some field work to gather real evidence one way or the other. For some reason, the Playstation crowd seem reluctant to get their shoes dirty with real data collection, preferring to offer models as ‘evidence’.
It reminds me of when Steve McIntyre took a few hours out from his vacation some years ago to collect tree cores – a straightforward task which most of his detractors were apparently reluctant to embark on.

A very interesting theory
A good use for a model
But they should have stayed away from any type of modern day guesswork comparisons to AGW

Gail Combs

phlogiston says:
November 6, 2012 at 1:04 am
They’re preparing the ground for a “look – global warming is causing global cooling” argument. Expect it within the next 1-2 years.
_________________________________
Yes that certainly sounds likely.
They have already run through:
CRISIS: Global cooling
Catastrophic Global Warming ( while trying to erase the existence of the global cooling scare in the ’70s.)
Catastrophic Climate Change
Climate Weirding (CAGW caused hurricane Sandy)
Lets face it, the Team knows the temperature rise has stalled and the sun has changed. ( WUWT: The sun – still slumping ) So they sent in the troops, Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich , to rewrite the solar activity graphs originated by physicists: Dr. Doug Hoyt and Dr. Richard C.Willson. Judith Lean was then appointed as the ONLY solar physicist to vet her own work!

R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”
Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN – Group Sunspot Number indicator) agrees with Willson. The graph tampering done by Judith and Claus was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge…
And the comment from the representatives of the Norwegian government on Chapter II, Working Group I (solar forcing) are very striking in the context of solar forcing.
(Note 2-26 from the Norwegian government, ref. No. 2018-42 Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second Order Draft)
“I urge IPCC to consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section hangs on one single paper in which Judith Lean is the co-author.”

Letters from Dr. Hoyt and Dr Willson and the comment from the Norwegian government are at Judithgate: IPCC consensus was only one physicist with the rest of the story.
Luboš Motl is even more scathing and shows Dr. Judith Lean is an ATMOSPHERIC physicist not a SOLAR physicist. As Motl says,

…The situation is even more awkward because the IPCC really relied on a single paper – and Ms Lean is a co-author

Lean J., Roltmann G., Harder J., Kopp G.: Source contributions to new understanding of global change and solar variability, Sol. Phys., 230, 27-53, 2005

– to claim that the solar activity didn’t rise when the global climate was heating up a little bit in the recent decades. There were no other solar physicists or astrophysicists in the IPCC.
The influence of the Sun is a pretty important question, isn’t it?
…In fact, if you click at the word “agree” above, you will find out that a total of six “solar” papers were suggested for inclusion, much like a couple of people who understand cosmic rays. But the proposal was rejected – so the IPCC only relied on a single “solar” paper and a single solar/astro physicist….

So yes it looks like they are busy grasping at straws to keep CAGW, the great moneymaker, alive. With all the publicity and trillions of dollars spent they literally can not back down.
Note: 2005 was toward the end of cycle 23. 23 was not as strong as 22. The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel was convened in October 2006. link. Predicitions were made as early as 2003:
Janssens Solar Cycle 24 prediction chart: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html

catweazle666

This massive influx of frigid fresh water injected over the surface of the ocean is assumed to have….
Ah, “is assumed to have…”, eh?
So it’s based on an assumption fed into an Xbox game a computer model.
Sorry, as an engineer I’m not impressed.

Bill Illis

Lake Agassiz drained south into the Mississippi River through the River Warren drainage channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:River_Warren_Valley.gif
http://geology.com/shaded-relief/northcentral.shtml
The continental divide here peaks at 977 feet at Traverse Gap Minnesota so when Lake Agassiz’s elevation became lower than this, it drained into Hudson Bay or when blocked by the glaciers over Hudson Bay, it just stayed there.
http://www.johnweeks.com/river_minnesota/pages/mnD20.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Browns_Valley_flood_07.jpg
There is no over-topping point to the northwest in North America which is lower than this until you get all the way the Arctic Ocean near Cambridge Bay. It did not flow into the Mackenzie River Basin etc. which other papers have modelled.
http://www.nwas.org/meetings/nwa2006/Broadcast/Kelsch/watersheds/media/graphics/unit_3/NAshadedreliefUSGS_3.jpg
Now it is possible there were other melt-water lakes in the Mackenzie River drainage basin (the glaciers between the Rockies and the Laurentide ice-sheet melted back about 13,500 years ago when the first North American Indians made it through this passage) but any melt-water lakes here were not linked up to Lake Agassiz which was several hundred feet lower.

beng

I’ve seen where areas of “downwelling” are identified around Iceland & Greenland.
But wouldn’t some downwelling occur wherever the sea-ice edge is actively freezing? When it freezes, salt is excluded from the new ice into the nearest surface water, making it saltier (heavier) than water below.

That’s just great. Another episode of Blame Canada.
🙂
John M Reynolds

rgbatduke

I take exception to the words “conclusive evidence” when referring to a computer model. A model (even a “high resolution” one) may be very illuminating but conclusive evidence means something else entirely.
I agree completely with this statement. What they have shown is that the meltwater hypothesis is numerically plausible — it could have produced the observed result. It is probably not unique among physical phenomena that could have produced the desired result, and it isn’t clear how any bolus of water would have produced a result lasting 1000 years in this or any other “sudden trigger” model or hypothesis. That would require a long term change in the circulation, which is certainly possible but far from proven, as the freshwater would very likely have equilibrated by mixing with the salt at its boundaries fairly rapidly IMO. One has to posit a shift from one semistable cycle to another neighboring one that remained stable even after the driver of the shift disappeared, which is entirely possible but depends on a lot of unknown dynamics to happen.
Add this up and it is hardly conclusive. It simply addresses one of the objections of the previous statements of the hypothesis, that even if it happened it wouldn’t have made enough difference as the effect would have been too small. They’ve shown that if the water broke north instead of southeast, it wouldn’t have been too small (good for the hypothesis as it is now less unlikely to be true) but they haven’t come close to showing that it did in fact happen. That would take a different kind of evidence, a kind we may well never discover. Empirical evidence.
I, for one, do not think that it is the case that we can or ever will be able to positively resolve all questions like this one. It was a long time ago, physical evidence is rare and ambiguous (more than one possible explanation), and the real cause was very likely multifactorial — this AND this AND that, not just “this was the proximate cause of the Younger Dryas”. As I sometimes point out on these pages, we do not yet have a clear understanding of what causes ice ages in the first place (I’m speaking of the broad trend of climate towards glaciations that last millions of years with punctuating but short interglacials like the one that began some 2.5 million years ago). Lacking this understanding, I am extremely skeptical that we know enough to fully understand the factors that govern the glacial/interglacial modulation during the broader ice age. Orbital stuff, sure, maybe, but that seems unlikely to explain the broader trend over the last 50 million years from warm era (MUCH warmer than the present) that gradually cooled until it passed a critical point where temperatures dropped relatively “precipitously” (over a million or so years) into glacial/interglacial oscillation with a gradually descending glacial floor temperature and with a spontaneously shifting quasi-period.
What can explain this pattern? Orbital stuff, long term turnover of rocks in mountain ranges, subduction, long term variability in the sun, passage of the solar system through “stardust patches” of just the right sort to modulate solar intensity or otherwise affect atmospheric chemistry, feedback, volcanic activity — none of these (except solar stuff) seems sufficient in and of itself to produce the baseline variation around which the other factors perhaps heterodyne to produce the oscillations. Until we fully understand, and can quantitatively predict, this baseline and the primary first order correctors, how can we distinguish the YD as an “event” requiring “explanation” as opposed to mere multifactorial noise in a region of critical instability?
rgb

I am still holding out for the comet explanation.
A comet crashing into the ice sheets would have vaporized an enormous amount of water which could have fallen as snow over North America, Siberia, Northern Europe, and the the Arctic itself, increasing significantly the Earth’s albedo and affecting the ocean circulation too.

“Conclusive evidence” would consist of going up into the great white north, digging up some rocks, and showing beyond question that you’ve identified the actual outflow channels.
Many have looked. ‘Tain’t happened yet
On the other hand, since the YD impact hypothsis pretty much proposes that the LIS took a major hit from a fragmented comet along about that time, what does their cute little computer model say the climatic result of sending a few hundred thousand cubic miles of ice up into the atmosphere all at once as steam might look like?
Maybe the reason no one has ever positively identified the out flow channels for glacial lake Aggasiz is simply because there aren’t any..

Perry

Geologists have already found evidence that a major outbreak of Lake Agassiz, about 13,000 years ago, drained north through the Mackenzie River into the Arctic Ocean. Two references.
Murton, J. B., Bateman MD, Dallimore SR, Teller JT, Yang Z (2010-04-01). “Identification of Younger Dryas outburst flood path from Lake Agassiz to the Arctic Ocean”. Nature 464 (7289): 740–743. doi:10.1038/nature08954. PMID 20360738.
Schiermeier, Quirin (31 March 2010). “River reveals chilling tracks of ancient flood”. Nature.
retrieved 2010-04-05.
The draining of 13,000 years ago may be the cause of the Younger Dryas stadial. The draining at 9,900–10,000 years ago may be the cause of the 8,200 yr climate event. A recent study by Turney and Brown links the 8,500 years ago drainage to the expansion of agriculture from east to west across Europe; he suggests that this may also account for various flood myths of prehistoric cultures, including the Biblical flood myth.
On this occasion, Wikipedia offers a reasonable article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz

I was just this morning pondering precisely this issue….and lo! After a long absence from blogging, i tune in and here it is – and thanks Don Easterbrook for your comments – I will look up your work on this. My tuppence-worth is this: the thermohaline circulation is often touted as a means of altering the heat balance of the planet, but I have never quite believed it….firstly, the bottom waters spread out and are very slow moving as they head south…Lozier et al showed they do not maintain a discrete body of water, and I have yet to see a convincing calculation of the mass balance and associated thermal gradients made from actual measurements…models have a tendency to fit numbers in according to what they need to get out!
The main mover of surface waters, where the heat is held in the top few hundred meters, are winds…and the Greenland ice-cap data which show rapid shifts on a cyclic basis can only be interpreted as changes in wind and wind-driven ocean currents.
So – the THC may have been slowed by 30%…but this is not unusual. Bryden and his team found a 30% change within 14 years – it slowed down between 1990 and 2004, but then speeded up again. Also – the North Atlantic registered a steady freshening about a decade ago, and then this too reversed….have yet to see the most recent data to coincide with the latest Arctic melt-down, but notice there are no glaring headlines, so I presume not much has changed.
If the Younger Dryas was not caused by a release of melt-water, then this highlights the need to study other mechanisms…ways of swiftly altering wind patterns and ocean currents – the only way of significantly altering global heat balances.

Jon

So what formed the Laurentian Channel then???

I lost interest at ‘first conclusive evidence’ whilst understanding this was a model simulation.

I have always understood ocean circulation as being a way for warmth from the tropics to be released. Energy, whether from the Sun or forces on Earth generate heat. That heat has to be bled off. Ocean currents do that by moving that heat to the poles. Thunderstorms in the tropics also bled off heat but on a smaller and more localized scale.
So if flood waters blocked ocean circulation and kept the poles from warming then they also should have kept the tropics from cooling.
They need to find evidence of increased warmth in the tropics during this time to help prove their claim.
Or am I totally off base? (I have no degrees in any science)

tadchem

“Using their high resolution, global, ocean-ice circulation model that is 10 to 20 times more powerful than previously attainable, Condron and Winsor compared how meltwater from the two different drainage outlets was delivered to the sinking regions in the North Atlantic. ”
Will this game be coming out for the XBox-360 or the PC in the foreseeable future?

Dennis Cox says:
November 6, 2012 at 5:39 am
Maybe the reason no one has ever positively identified the out flow channels for glacial lake Aggasiz is simply because there aren’t any..
=========
In Washington state you can see immense channel that were obviously cut by massive flows of water some time in the recent past. They are not rounded as one would expect if they were ancient.
Yet it took 50 years for Bretz to overcome the established thinking of the time. By that time all opponents to his ideas had finally died.
However, the problem for other researchers is the Bretz actually got out into the field and found the channels. Unfortunately for theorist these lead to the Pacific.