Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times

Mammoth Trumpet ^ | March 2001 | Firestone/Topping

[Renfield]

I don't know what the source of this graphic is (and I would appreciate knowing...it's a good graphic). I scrolled through all 220 replies to this thread and didn't see it. I can only guess that this refers to a global average of sea level, and doesn't take into account local effects of tectonism, glacial forebulge, etc. There has been considerable uplift, relative to global average sea level, just in the last 30,000 years, in my area of Southern Maryland, for example (if you remind me during the work week next week, I'll send you some information on this if you are interested).

[ForGod'sSake]

I don't know what the source of this graphic is (and I would appreciate knowing...it's a good graphic). I scrolled through all 220 replies to this thread and didn't see it. I can only guess that this refers to a global average of sea level, and doesn't take into account local effects of tectonism, glacial forebulge, etc.

From my post HERE. Checking the "properties" on the graphic indicates it came from the University of Arizona geosciences dept library.

There has been considerable uplift, relative to global average sea level, just in the last 30,000 years, in my area of Southern Maryland, for example (if you remind me during the work week next week, I'll send you some information on this if you are interested).

Actually you have already covered this in your post #201. I even acknowledged finding another source reaching similar results in my searches I had since forgotten. Gettin' old is a B!TCH? So, the uplift of ~120' in the area would just about square with the approximate sea level at the time.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks.

[GOPJ]

bump for later

[ForGod'sSake]

It's late and I'm tired, but I wanted to get THIS posted here for later discussion:

GENETIC STRATIGRAPHY AND GEOCHRONOLOGY OF SOUTH CAROLINA SHORELINES: IMPLICATIONS FOR MIS 5A SEA LEVEL

BLUM, Mike and WILLIS, Rus, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, mike@geol.lsu.edu

Prior to the Holocene, the most recent major warm period was marine isotope stage 5 (MIS 5, ca. 130-75 ka.). Global ice volumes during substage 5e (ca. 130-116 ka.) were slightly less, and sea-level positions were 3-6 m higher, than those of today. However, substages 5c (ca. 105 ka.) and 5a (ca. 82 ka.) represent secondary ice volume minima and sea-level maxima, the magnitudes of which are the subject of debate. For example, theoretical and empirical estimates for sea-level elevations during substage 5a range from -19 m to something approximating present day values. These contrasting views of substage 5a are not trivial, and correspond to differences in global ice volume that exceed present-day Greenland plus the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Most widely cited MIS 5 sea-level records are derived from uplifting oceanic islands and associated coral reefs. Clastic shorelines along passive continental margins have, by comparison, been underappreciated. This paper presents initial results of research along the South Carolina coast, between Charleston and the Santee River, where previous workers have raised a number of questions regarding the age and significance of shoreline successions. However, few issues have been resolved due to a lack of geochronological data.

Our investigations use detailed mapping, ground-penetrating radar, cores, and optical dating to address shoreline stratigraphy and geochronology. These data show that shoreline successions can be differentiated into discrete units with prograding barrier / shoreface lithosomes from one highstand truncated seaward by a scarp and underlying ravinement surface, which is in turn overlain by lagoonal facies and/or the next younger barrier / shoreface succession. Optical dates on shoreface sands indicates these shorelines represent MIS 7, MIS 5e, and substage 5a. Most importantly, MIS 5e sea-level indicators occur at elevations of +3-5 m, whereas substage 5a sea-level indicators occur at elevations up to +2-3 m. From these data we conclude that no significant net uplift or subsidence has taken place since MIS 5e in this area. It follows that the present elevation of the substage 5a shoreline cannot be explained by uplift or subsidence, and that relative sea-level positions for substage 5a along the South Carolina coast were approximately the same as MIS 5e or the present day.

[Renfield]

"...From my post HERE. Checking the "properties" on the graphic indicates it came from the University of Arizona geosciences dept library..."

Your post #177 doesn't have a graphic in it.

[ForGod'sSake]

Your post #177 doesn't have a graphic in it.

It doesn't?! But yet you can see it in post #220??? That's odd. The identical graphic apppears in each. For the record, the address of the pic: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/ecol438/sealevl.gif

BTW, does a "gap" appear in the text on #177 where a graphic might be?

(((scratching head)))

Gotta run til this evening.

[Renfield]

There is a gap of 2 lines, but no graphic. I see where it is supposed to be, but it's not there.

This might be an operating system (I'm using Windows 2000) or browser issue. I went to Michael Steele's web page, for example, and all the "contact" and "volunteer" information is invisible to me. Or it could be my anti-ad/anti-spam software.

[ForGod'sSake]

I'm still unclear if you were ever able to see the sea level graphic even though you commented about it being a good graphic. Color me befuddled.

I've got too many irons in the fire so re my #225: A cursory reading(due to lack of alertness) of what appears to be something akin to an executive summary(?); this study seems to indicate there has been very little "uplift" in the particular area of So Carolina they looked at. Your thoughts?

[SunkenCiv]

related (I thought this all seemed familiar):

Ancient Atomic Warfare - Religious texts and geological evidence
New York Herald Tribune on February 16, 1947 | New York Herald Tribune on February 16, 1947 | Ivan T. Sanderson
Posted on 07/22/2002 5:01:00 PM EDT by vannrox
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/720501/posts

[ForGod'sSake]

That's just weird. Interesting, but weird.

[Renfield]

I WAS able to see your graphic in your second posting of it.

As for uplift in coastal South Carolina, I think the best thing for me to do would be to give you Helaine Markewich's e-mail address, and you can contact her directly with your question. She's probably as qualified as anyone to straighten out the matter. I'm at home now and don't have it here, but if you ping me about this during the work week, I'll pass it on to you in a PM.

[the-ironically-named-proverbs2]

bump for later

[gleeaikin]

If you could flesh it in a little.

I don't know if this will help but here are a few thoughts about the Stratigraphy. Tex, the Exmore Breccia was formed when the great Chesapeake boloid crashed about 34 million years ago leaving a crater 50 miles in diameter, with the north end in Exmore (Delmarva Pen.) and the south end at Norfolk. As I may have said before if interested, read "Chesapeake Invader" by Wylie Poag (1999). Before his research, the source of the breccia was unknown. Now it is recognized as the broken rock that tumbled back into the great crater left behind. This also explains the two fault lines under Hampton and Chesapeake Bay. What I don't understand is why there is no Tex under TK in the fault block. If the section was drawn up before 1999 maybe they didn't look hard enough. TK is older Tertiary and Cretaceous formations. Perhaps TK to the left is Cretaceous, but TK over Tex has to be younger than 34my. Te, marine, sand and clay, may have been the deposition over the entire area as marine sediments covered the disaster area. Apparently the fault block subsided over a period of time. Of course the age of TK in the fault block and the age of Te would be useful information. Poag's book also has several stratigraphic sections of the area.

[ForGod'sSake]

The truth of the matter is, I don't know enough about the subject to even ask the right questions. The only thing that seems to make any sense to me assuming the last study I posted is more or less correct, which indicates little uplift along the South Carolina coast, is the bays would HAVE to be ~120,000+ years old to have been formed by sea level changes. That's the last time sea levels were as high as they are now. Question is, is that possible given what you know about the bays?

BTW, taking another look at the sea level table in #220, it looks like I missed the ~70,000 year old sea level by a bit. It looks closer to ~200 - 250' lower at that time instead of the ~150' I originally guesstimated. Do you get approximately the same numbers???

I'm probably missing something. Seems lately when I sit down to look at this mystery, I'm already tired and have difficulty focusing for very long.

[ForGod'sSake]

What I don't understand is why there is no Tex under TK in the fault block. If the section was drawn up before 1999 maybe they didn't look hard enough. TK is older Tertiary and Cretaceous formations. Perhaps TK to the left is Cretaceous, but TK over Tex has to be younger than 34my. Te, marine, sand and clay, may have been the deposition over the entire area as marine sediments covered the disaster area.

I more or less follow what you're saying, but if you're basing your opinion on this particular graphic, there's always the possibility the graphic itself is not all that accurate; maybe more of a generalized stratigraphy representation. I dunno. It would probably take some detective work to determine that but I'm not up to the task.

Of course the age of TK in the fault block and the age of Te would be useful information.

Probably so, but I can't follow the timeline, presuming there is one even implied in the graphic. The labels of the different layers don't even register with me. IOW, I can't make heads or tails out of it ;^)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I read about one of these which was found in Africa near Mt. Kilimanjaro

[Renfield]

That isn't the last time they were "as high as they are now". They were higher 7000 to 5000 years ago, for example. Your graph is probably a rolling 1000-year average or something like it. If you could view it year-by-year, it would be a lot more erratic.

[gleeaikin]

"The labels of the different layers don't even register with me."

Let me see if I can make it a little more clear. Start with "Igneous and Metamorphic Basement". (This is very old bedrock formed by volcanic activity or extreme pressure.) It has been eroded over time, and then various layers of sedimentary rock have been deposited on it at different times. Normally, the lower layers are older than the layers above.

Now, let's find a layer we can date either by knowledge or description. Cretaceous refers to a time before 65 million years ago. Older Tertiary refers to time after 65 mya, but still a long time ago. Quarternary refers to the time of the Ice Ages, less than two million years old. The one formation that I can date by knowledge is Tex - Exmore Breccia. This jumble of broken rock (breccia) was formed by the great Chesapeake boloid which struck about 34 million years ago, when all the debris fell back into the great crater. Since Poag an associates first published their hypothesis that the breccia was crash debris in 1995, anything older and even for a few years after would not include that concept in its charts and literature. Now it is well accepted by people working in that area.

At any rate, back to the chart. The fault lines to the right were caused by slumping along the rim of the great crater. The age of TK in the slump block is unknown, and the lack of Tex is puzzling. The TK over Tex has to be younger than 34 million years, as does Te and Ty. Since the fault lines extend up into Te and part way into Ty, then the block must have continued to slip over an extended period of time. I hope this makes things a little clearer.

[ForGod'sSake]

That isn't the last time they were "as high as they are now". They were higher 7000 to 5000 years ago, for example.

FIGURE 6.3 Late Quaternary fluctuations in sea level. Solid line is the generalized sea level curve (from Curray, 1965); dashed line is detailed curve (from Curray, 1960, 1961). Tree ring and Uranium/Thorium dates give greater age than the radiocarbon ages for these curves. Recent studies (Fairbanks, 1989; Bard, 1990) indicate the glacial maximum was 21,000 (²³⁰TH/²³⁴U) yearsBP with a sea level lowering of 121 ± 5 m.

And the original:

Your graph is probably a rolling 1000-year average or something like it. If you could view it year-by-year, it would be a lot more erratic.

One would assume there was/is some smoothing of chart lines along the way, but it doesn't even come close to explaining the elephant in the room and that is: Give or take a few feet, the last time sea levels were as high as they are now was ~120,000 years ago. ~70,000 years ago, sea levels were ~200 - 250 feet LOWER than they are today.

Now, if one assumes, based on THIS study, that South Carolina, and by extension surrounding areas experienced no appreciable uplift in the intervening years, where does that leave us as far as explaining the bay's formation by sea level fluctuations? To this layman, it doesn't seem possible.

I did some looking around to see if the La Palma "mega" tsunami could have generated enough havoc to be associated with the bays; doesn't appear so. Liquifaction caused by earthquake(s) that may have run the length of the Appalachians might be a possibility, but do we know if anything like that ever occurred???

One other point: You seem to have a habit of avoiding or possibly putting off some of my more interesting questions. I know we all get busy or otherwise distracted at times but it gets frustrating asking questions several times before hitting pay dirt. No offense.

FGS