On Sat, 31 Mar
(Eric Swanson) wrote:

One can also consider the evidence for previous sea levels, which
began to rise at about 18,000 BP and then reached nearly that of
today by about 7,000 BP.

http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu...h/sealevel.htm

Careful "Joe", this science stuff can get to be an addiction..:-)
Been following the Peak Oil issue too?

I have been at it for 60 years, before that it
was Buck Rogers.

Not to worry about peak oil, they are building an
ethanol plant here.

Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:32:24 -0400, Bob Brown
. wrote:

THIS IS THE COMMENT
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:56:14 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
I am sure that 20,000 years a ago, where I am,
the temperature was 50 degrees colder, because
ice was a mile thick here, so I am sure it is
warmer now, but I have not seen any evidence
that there is an "upward trend".

Notice where he says "where I am", indicating he
is talking about a well populated city "TODAY".
I am asking does it make any sense that ice was
a "mile thick" in the area 20K years ago?

I am asking about the AREA he mentioned, not
greenland.

Please, I am not asking a difficult or trick
question.

Unless you accept that the debris
dragged by
the mile thick glacier from Canada all across
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois shows that there was
a mile thick glacier here, and there were no men
here then, and the temperature was below
freezing under the ice, it must be a trick
question.

There are no bones of man in the US
from
before 11,000 years ago, but there are bones of
Woolly Mammoth and Sabre Tooth Tiger in Texas.

I don't understand the problem, what
is the trick?

Joe Fischer

Joe, you may want to also remind them that during
that ice age sea level was as much as 350 feet
LOWER than it is today. Maybe then the doubters
can do their own calculations and determine the
massive quantity of ice that stored that much
water. Also, we are still recovering from that
ice age and hence sea level is still rising - it
is a natural occurrence.

On Mar 31, 11:34 am, Bob Brown . wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 05:26:24 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:

The first link I mentioned above shows the
area covered by ice at three times in the relatively
recent past by clicking on the different age markers,
to view it in a browser, double click the underlined url.

Here is a link that describes the thickness of
the Greenland ice sheet;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

Someone said "where I live the ice was a mile thick 20K years ago"
I have to assume he meant some city in a well populated area, not some
area unpopulated like an ice shelf.

Again I ask, does anyone want to lay claim that where they live now,
20K years ago their wa ICE a "mile thick"?

I can re-quote the posting if needed.

Bob - what kinds of games are you playing here?

Or do you really not understand?

The area where the city of Detroit NOW stands, according to the
geologists, used to be under a cover of ice that was one mile thick or
more.

However, there wasn't any city underneath the ice -- or on top of it
-- at that time. Partly because human beings hadn't invented cities
yet, as far as we know. And partly because the damned ice was in the
way..

To say "Twenty thousand years ago there was a mile of ice covering
Detroit, and all the people who lived there," assumes first that
people could have lived under all that burden.

It also implies that Detroit is 20,000 years old, which is not true.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:32:24 -0400, Bob Brown . wrote:

THIS IS THE COMMENT
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:56:14 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:
I am sure that 20,000 years a ago, where I am,
the temperature was 50 degrees colder, because
ice was a mile thick here, so I am sure it is warmer
now, but I have not seen any evidence that there
is an "upward trend".

Notice where he says "where I am", indicating he is talking about a
well populated city "TODAY". I am asking does it make any sense that
ice was a "mile thick" in the area 20K years ago?

I am asking about the AREA he mentioned, not greenland.

Please, I am not asking a difficult or trick question.

Unless you accept that the debris dragged by
the mile thick glacier from Canada all across Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois shows that there was a mile
thick glacier here, and there were no men here then,
and the temperature was below freezing under
the ice, it must be a trick question.

There are no bones of man in the US from
before 11,000 years ago, but there are bones of
Woolly Mammoth and Sabre Tooth Tiger in Texas.

I don't understand the problem, what is the trick?

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:35:38 -0400, Bob Brown . wrote:

5,280 feet high of ice?

If that was a common height at that time, could you explain where the
water went?

As the glacier that moved from Canada down across
Ohio and Indiana, the water from melting created the Ohio
and part of the Mississippi river channel.

And the water ran into the ocean, raising sea level.

I would also think 20K years isn't long enough, even under
extreme circumstances, to melt vast areas of ice "a mile thick",
wouldn't you?

It seems rather fast, but geology is pretty good,
I have always been amazed at the things specialists
can do, and because of disbelief, I have tracked their
methods, and they were good.

I'm not harassing you, I just need a gentle answer.

I suspect the amount of cloud cover was much
reduced, and the glacier moving down from Canada
might have moved into an area that had been above
freezing, and with less cloud cover, and maybe dirty
ice and no snow, the sun could have done a lot of
melting from the top and there is always melting of
a thick glacier from the bottom.

Sea level has definitely risen a lot since then,
the Bering Strait could be waded at least part of the
time at some point in time for the Asians to migrate
down the west coast (or South Americans to migrate
to Asia).
And the English Channel could be waded
at the time of Christ. But the English Channel
itself was covered by a glacier 20,000 years ago.

Temperatures have warmed since then,
although I am not able to appreciate how they
can estimate the temperature from even 500 years
ago within one degree, just to calibrate a thermometer
after it was invented would have been a tedious job
to assure that each degree took the same amount
of heat, and to establish the exact freezing point
and the exact boiling point.

And the proxy estimates from things like
tree rings would seem to be even more difficult
to be precise within one degree.

That is the main reason I am not concerned
with the present claimed increase in temperature
of one degree Celsius, and I do not consider the
premise of an average global temperature to be
a valid way to measure "warming" because the
amount of heat needed to warm water is not the
same as the amount of heat needed to warm the
same amount of air or stone.

The weather has seemed more stable the
last 10 years, but not what I would call noticeably
warmer, I simply can't find many all time new
high temperature records, almost all the records
talked about are day of the year records.

Joe Fischer