Posted on 03/06/2009 1:04:30 PM PST by SunkenCiv
A snapshot of New Zealand's climate 40 million years ago reveals a greenhouse Earth, with warmer seas and little or no ice in Antarctica, according to research recently published in the journal Geology. The study suggests that Antarctica at that time was yet to develop extensive ice sheets. Back then, New Zealand was about 1100 km further south, at the same latitude as the southern tip of South America -- so was closer to Antarctica -- but the researchers found that the water temperature was 23-25°C at the sea surface and 11-13°C at the bottom. "This is too warm to be the Antarctic water we know today," said Dr Catherine (Cat) Burgess from Cardiff University and lead-author of the paper. "And the seawater chemistry shows there was little or no ice on the planet." These new insights come from the chemical analysis of exceptionally well preserved fossils of marine micro-organisms called foraminifers, discovered in marine rocks from New Zealand. The researchers tested the calcium carbonate shells from these fossils, which were found in 40 million-year-old sediments on a cliff face at Hampden Beach, South Island... "Our work provides another piece of evidence that, in a time period with relatively high carbon dioxide levels, temperatures were higher and ice sheets were much smaller and likely to have been completely absent." The rock sequence from the cliff face covers a time span of 70,000 years and shows cyclical temperature variations with a period of about 18,000 years. The temperature oscillation is likely to be related to the Earth's orbital patterns.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
“Reversals have been documented as far back as 330 million years. During that time more than 400 reversals have taken place, one roughly every 700,000 years on average. However, the time between reversals is not constant, varying from less than 100,000 years, to tens of millions of years. In recent geological times reversals have been occurring on average once every 200,000 years, but the last reversal occurred 780,000 years ago. At that time the magnetic field underwent a transition from a “reversed” state to its present “normal state”.”
780,000 years ago- Looks like we are about due. 2012?
http://www.slowmotiondoomsday.com/polarpivot.html
They got it backwards, as usual. In periods of relatively high temperatures, carbon dioxide levels increase.
Man, that 2012 date just keeps poppin up.
“Effects on biosphere and human society”
“Because the magnetic field has never been observed to reverse by humans with instrumentation, and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal. Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, Homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions. A possible explanation is that the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth’s ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles even in the absence of the Earth’s normal magnetic field.[7]
Although the inspection of past reversals does not indicate biological extinctions, present society with its reliance on electricity and electromagnetic effects (e.g. radio, satellite communications) may be vulnerable to technological disruptions in the event of a full field reversal.”
Leave it to Wiki to calm our fears.
Mechanics of Displacements...the Antarctic beech trees are from two to three million years old. The point that was being made was that plate tectonics, as a theory, was incapable of explaining the existence of this forest so close to the South Pole a mere two to three million years ago. This is not to say that plate tectonics is wrong: it is simply insufficient on its own to account for these facts. At the slow pace of change demanded by plate tectonics the beech trees would have to be many millions (not just 2 or 3 million) of years old to be 200 miles from the South Pole. In other words, to account for the beech forest on Antarctica we need another whole Earth theory to explain the facts. Earth crust displacement is a complementary whole earth theory to plate tectonics that can account for these facts. We are not disputing the power of the plate tectonic theory: we are simply adding another set of lens with which the past might be viewed.
by Rand Flem-AthSpending Time and Wasting Space:What we find from the ice core dating is that Lesser Antarctica has been covered in ice for at least 122,000 years, if not more. But when we shift our attention to the opposite side of the globe and look at Siberia, Beringia and Alaska we do not find equivalent ice sheets. Instead we find evidence of many large mammals such as horses, bison and rhinoceros swarming over grasslands. How can one part of the globe be under ice for at least 122,000 years while the exact opposite of the globe has no ice and large mammals (dating from 11,000 to 70,000 carbon-14 years ago)? This does not compute. Either the evidence from the north is wrong or the evidence from the south is wrong.
or how ice core dating went wrong
by Rand Flem-Ath and Colin Wilson
If there is a connection between climate and the position of the magnetic pole, I don’t know what it is, or whether anyone has studied it. Since *everyone knows* that *only humans* can have an impact on climate, studying such a phenomenon would be a huge waste of grant money. ;’)
"So.... who took the snapshot?"Isn't it obvious?
Good point
http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/planetx.htm
are all these cultural lores - the name Nibiru as derived from sumerian for planet of the crossing or “ferry” - fake then?
interesting story about a former astronaut trying to do archeological expedition into Antarctica after surviving “red genie”
http://www.lantis.tv/amp/releases/mars.html
"Ali Zawas" and "Griffin Yeats" show up on web searches, but the pointers are to the "lantis.tv" site, or to other wacko sites which quote from / steal from each other.Zecharia Sitchin's Errors: An OverviewThe goal here was to amass for readers every occurrence of the word "nibiru" in ancient cuneiform texts. Fortunately, this is possible because of the diligent work of the compilers of the well known Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, which bases its entries on exhaustive compilations of all cuneiform material know to the present day (there's a reason its taken decades to compile!). The study shows - from the texts themselves, not my opinion - that "Nibiru" is not a planet beyond Pluto and that the Anunnaki gods are never associated with it. These ideas are fabrications. Additionally, this study briefly details the sources left to us by the Mesopotamian scribes that are of an astronomical nature, and addresses Sitchin's "god to planet" matchups that he uses to reconstruct the cosmology of earth and our solar system. In other words, when Sitchin says "the god Marduk is the planet Nibiru" and proceeds to read this equation (and others) into the Sumero-Akkadian texts to interpret them, I compare such equations to the actual lists in cuneiform where Mesopotamian astronomers struck god = planet equations. Not surprisingly, they don't agree...
by Michael S. Heiser
I was asked if I was willing to debate Mr. Sitchin two years ago by Art Bell on the air, and was asked again by Coast to Coast's weekend host, Barbara Simpson the same question months later. I accepted immediately; Mr. Sitchin has been silent; The only person who has responded to anything on this website has been the intrepid but unprepared Erik Parker, Sitchin's webmaster. To date Erik has not answered the questions below. He has not produced a single text that says Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto, or that associates the Anunnaki with Nibiru. He has not refuted (or even understood) the points of Hebrew grammar I have introduced regarding "nephilim" and "elohim". (And in fairness, he can't be expected to since he has no language training). He has not explained why the Sumero-Akkadian story of building the tower (Sitchin says rocket ship) has the object being built with bricks, or why such advanced ETs as the Anunnaki came here with internal combustion engines. Most importantly, he has not explained why there has been no effort to arrange any sort of debate. Instead, Erik has attacked my motives and tried to twist parts of my discussions into "agreeing" with Sitchin (which is why I reproduce all our exchanges in whole - so you know who is twisting what). Zero response. Zero substance.
well, if there is no planet (or binary system) in the outer solar system that swings inside our known planetary system every 3600 years or so there are other theories! If “planet X” is in bound to meet the dates peoople think are recorded in ancient calendars etc we’ll know soon
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm
The Hab theory is also interesting to read about
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198001/piri.reis.and.the.hapgood.hypotheses.htm
“The Hab Theory goes on, because every 6,000 years or so the polar regions accumulate so much ice that the earth begins to wobble on its axis. At a critical point the wobble becomes so bad that the earth capsizes, leaving the polar regions at the equator and the equatorial regions at the poles. The earth’s normal rotation then resumes until the new polar regions accumulate enough ice to cause another wobble and another cataclysm”
and the Piri Reis and Oronteus Finaeus - or Finé-map - mysteries make for good reading
Have been trying to find out more about Yeats- Griffin and Conrad- much of the search yields fictional novels written about Antarctic expeditions to find Atlantis or ancient civilization structures beneath the ice cap. Makes me wonder exactly what is going on and by whom regarding mapping the underground features or structures of Antarctica
there was this a couple years back
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/665579/posts
I did find a paper written by Conrad Yeats concerning the symbology incorporated into the design of Washington DC. It feels like reading about a real life Indiana Jones and National Treasure guy rolled into one
I’m surprised no one has made a movie about Red Genie and the real life adventures of Griffin and Conrad Yeats!
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_ZB.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_ZB.htm
“DR. CONRAD YEATS is a fictional character from the blockbuster novel RAISING ATLANTIS”
Piri Reis map (no llamas, just a man with his face in his chest and some other mythical beasts):
http://www.bilgiustam.com/resimler/2008/03/piri_reis.jpg
April 25, 2000 21:15:47 EDT -- The Hapgood, Hancock, and Flem-Ath ideas about the various medieval maps of Antarctica are gently and cogently refuted by Robert Schoch in his Voices of the Rocks (p 105-106 in particular, but the entire discussion begins a few pages earlier and is well worth reading).
July 31, 2000 17:40:48 EDT -- Regarding Hapgood -- I don't accept his interpretation of the old maps. Clearly those are based on copies of ancient originals, but often do not show what he claimed. The coastlines of all the continents were different before and during the most recent global glaciation. Maps made by purported, very ancient mapmaking civilizations would not show conditions remarkably similar to those of today. Robert Schoch's explanation of the apparent ice-free Antarctica in those maps makes more sense to me despite my catastrophist orientation.
August 17, 2000 20:19:11 EDT -- One reason gradual change doesn't explain glaciation is the lack of intermediate shorelines. The low point of the sealevel is attested by the "fossil" shoreline, but no intervening higher level is found in now submerged areas. This indicates that sealevel fell too quickly -- and rose again too quickly -- to leave traces of the intermediate locations. This alone dispenses with Hapgood's 2,000 years or so of crustal displacement, but the Flem-Aths have discarded that detail in favor of a very rapid crustal displacement. The Flem-Aths are stuck, however, because of the hemispheric discrepancy which can't be explained by pole shift. Antarctica is isolated by water, but the southern hemisphere is also cooler today due to the presence of the Antarctic icecap (at least that's the conventional reason -- Milankovitch would disagree).
Does that mean that he couldn't have written some excellent scientific studies?
He has, but they were refereed by fictional PhDs then published in scientific journals which don’t exist.
Just an update ping message.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
