From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Another "coming changes" story
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:09:30 GMT

In article <145547@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> hudek@polaris.llnl.gov (David Hudek) writes:
>
>At one level, it basically claims that the Earth tends to physically
>evolve in a rather catastrophic manner... when mountains are formed,
>for instance, it is a sudden, wrenching event, rather than a slow gradual
>buildup. This story claims that the Earth's crust is only loosely connected
>to the underlying core of the planet and basically slides around over it
>(seems consistent with plate tectonics theory; OK so far). Supposedly, 
>for some reason these plates periodically shift and radically rearrange
>position with great violence, causing massive damage and loss of life.

From a geological standpoint, perhaps.  But very few of us are going to
be around for a few million years to watch this happen.  (The "great loss
of life" is due to that fact that the geological changes can happen too
fast for the species to evolve.  A contemporary analogy can be found in the
western United States -- the "tree-line" has dropped and you won't find
seedlings in very high groves, only old trees slowly dying out.  Individual
organisms are modestly affected, species can be decimated).


>They range from hearsay items such as numerous religions' common tales of an
>ancient catastrophe where most of the world's population was wiped out,
>but a few ocean-going folk survived (a la Noah's Ark) ...
>It is interesting to note that they are supposedly
>widespread among various religions and geographically separate cultures.

Floods are widespread and the source for these legends.  (Some of the
legends around the Mediteranean basin may be due to well-documented a
volcanic eruption).


>...  and suggest that there once was an exposed
>continent (Mu) where the Pacific Ocean now lies, the continent supported by
>the plate now submerged, and the Ring of Fire evidence of such a plate.
>I'm not a geologist...  but it seems reasonable to assume that there could be 
>such a plate.

Look at a topological map of the Pacific basin and try to repeat that 
statement.  Besides, if a major continent had existed in the Pacific basin
and collapsed (leaving > 2 miles of water over the entire continent) there
would be undeniable evidence of massive coastal flooding.  Remember -- the
land bridge between Siberia and Alaska is only a few hundred feet below the
current surface of the ocean; it's existence in historical times would have
been well documented.

There might have been a land bridge from the Iberian penisula and north
Africa as well.  I'm not sure how deep that strait is, but the Mediteranean
has been dry many times in the last few million years.


>Getting more concrete, they then mention cases of frozen animals discovered
>in glaciers... animals normally associated with tropical climates,
>apparently quick-frozen with supposedly tropical plants still partially
>undigested in their stomachs.

This was probably an overstatement, but this has an interesting connection
to global warming.  One model suggests that global warming will trigger an
ice age.  (The rise in temperature will change wind patterns and result in
_much_ more snowfall over arctic glaciers, leading to rapid glaciation).

I read a brief article which suggested that the deglaciation process can
occur much more quickly than previously expected (hinting the glaciation
process may occur quickly as well) and an long-term study in alpine terrain
a few miles away indicates that the highest levels of the central Rockies
are getting _colder_ while the rest of the country is getting warmer.
(The mountain peaks are colder due to an increase in cloud cover).


>They also mention cases of mysterious artificially constructed metallic
>objects being discovered at various places around the world during mining
>operations and suggest that these are evidence of former civilizations
>destroyed during such an earth shift catastrophe 

What are these objects, precisely?

It's clear that archeologists have been biased in the past, but the
possibility that a simple battery was used to electroplate jewelry several
thousand years ago does _not_ equal the presence of high-technology.

Now, evidence of uniformly manufactured large ceramic objects indicating 
1) mass production, 2) continent-wide commercial networks, 3) extensive
water works and 4) developed sewer systems (i.e., the presence of
millions of ceramic commodes in landfills) is another thing...


>Another interesting but difficult to prove case is the claim of the existence
>of an ancient map detailing the coast of Antartica, today not visible since
>it's buried deep under ice. Supposedly, this map had detail only later
>discovered and confirmed via sonar-like soundings on the continent, done
>in an effort to map the earth surface beneath the ice.

I think I saw a reproduction of that map once.  The fit isn't as nice as
you might wish.

Also, how to you explain the fact that the ice on the bottom of core samples
indicates Antarctica has been covered with ice for a _very_ long time?


>years and years ago, the coast might have been visible to
>explorers and over time the ice built up to its present depth.

Antarctica is in the middle of nowhere.  Find a good atlas and look at the
south polar projection and you'll see what I mean -- you have to cross
thousands of miles of open ocean to get to Antarctica from anywhere else,
except from Cape Horn (? -- the tip of South America).  Nobody could
cross from South America, however, because the conditions there start
and Hellish and get worse.  (Safe passage through that strait wasn't
possible until this century).

Any civilization which could map Antarctica would have traveled throughout
the world.  Where is the evidence for that?


>Let's see... then there's the claim that there is geological evidence in
>surface material that the Earth's magnetic poles have shifted position
>dramatically in the past, consistent with a sudden and large shifting of
>the crust. I don't know if this is correct or not... for fun I sent a note
>to sci.geo.geology to see what the 'experts' think.

The Earth's magnetic field is tied to currents in the core.  Between the
core and the crust is a few thousand miles of rock (the mantle).


>As a counter-argument,
>the greenhouse effect proponents have been claiming that the icecaps were
>starting to recede/melt.  Don't know where they got their data, either.

The ecofreaks may have claimed that, but I don't think any scientists
have.  Tropical and temperate glaciers (on mountain peaks) _have_ receded
sharply, and the arctic glaciers have been 'calving' much more than usual...
but the icepack is also getting thicker.

Remember those planes abandoned in Greenland in WWII?  50 years later they
are covered by 200+ _feet_ of ice!


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu

(Before people connect my comments on global warming with NOAA, I am but
a humble software engineer.  However, I do try to keep up on the available
information).
-- 
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.newage:6032 alt.alien.visitors:9670 sci.skeptic:22184