Re: Guide for anti-AATers
H. M. Hubey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
1 Nov 1995 21:58:41 -0500
email@example.com (Phillip Bigelow) writes:
>I have seen that graph in CEHE, and granted, it is horrendous as a source of
>good paleo-temp. data. And keep in mind that the Pliocene oceanic
It probably shows the average over the long run. It must some kind
of a moving-average.
>frollic in, you are going to have do your homework. Since you are convinced
Not really. I'm already convinced from there (and the earlier
post by Mr. Erwin) that the temperatures could have been hot
> You are wrong. Oxygen isotope ratios indicate a much colder average
>global oceanic water temperature during the glacial stades (which occurred,
There were probably fluctuations which doesn't show up on the
CEHE chart but that's OK. The precision of the chart is probably
as good as the resolution available from the bore samples.
> From my own work on Miocene paleo-environments, I have read journal
>publications that strongly suggest that a polar ice build-up started as
Ice (glaciers) and probably ocean/lake subbottom sediments are
probably best modeled as viscoelastic materials. That makes their
behavior like tar, or honey. They seem solid for rapid movement
or over short periods but like fluids over longer time periods.
This slow flow is called creep. If something like bone, is found
at some level as say a rock, it doesn't necessarily mean that
they were from the same time period. (I'm talking about something
like a lake bottom deposit that dried up.) The rock since it's
heavier could have sunk deeper but could come from a later
period. So many of these dates using ages of rocks could be off.
The same holds for glacier dating and other deposits.