>The "madhouse" climate model (versus icehouse or greenhouse) was based on
>some geologic evidence of very rapid change in sea level-less than a
>century. It's not necessary to melt the glaciers all at once, though-if
>they started to float, that would displace a lot of sea water very fast
>(and not show up in 18O records).
Beg to differ here. It most assuredly WOULD show up in the O-18 records. The
O18 record comes from the shells of planktonic foraminifera and other
photosynthetic organisms which die and fall to the ocean bottom. Since
glacial ice is fresh water it will float on top of the salty sea water,
creating a less saline, O-18 deficient layer on the ocean surface. The
plankton will be forced to live in an environment in which there is less O-18
to incorporate into their shells. When they fall to the sea floor, there will
be an unmistakable signature in the sedimentary record of this event.
Your suggestion has been made before (Emiliani et al, Science 189, (1975), p
1083) but was rather soundly beaten to death by a couple of responses.
Emiliani found a core in the Gulf of Mexico which had an oxygen peak which he
dated to 9000 B.C. and correlated with Plato's Atlantis and the Noachian
Flood. The problems were as follows (see various authors, Glacial surges and
Flood Legends, Science 193, p. 1268-1271):
1. Thermal calculations show that to melt a huge mass of continental ice
requires decades.
2. Even Emiliani's views would only cause rises in the sea leve of decimeters
per year, hardly a raging flood and not likely to be noticed.
3. ONe guy calculated that if a mass of ice 2800 km long, by 100 km wide by 1
km thick had melted in one year, it would raise the sea level by .7 meters.
Stretched out over a year that is 5 cm per month. If you didn't have very
sensitive gages, do you think you would notice that?
> It's been suggested as a possible global
>warming disaster and as an explanation for Pliocene marine diatoms in the
>interior of Antarctica (though the latter are probably wind-deposited).
>
These are the Sirius {sic?} plankton. Most do beleive that these are wind
deposits. If they are not, then one must believe that the Antarctic mountains
have risen to great heights in the last 10000 years.
>I agree that dismissing Genesis 1-10 seems no more arbitrary than
>dismissing Exodus 1-20 or Matthew 1-20. However, all passages must be
>examined to figure out what they mean, using all the evidence we can
>gather. Not that we should assume every passage is obscure, but rather
>that reactionary defense of our understanding of a passage (as opposed to
>the passage) tends to get us into trouble. I suspect that the lack of
>unignorable evidence supporting Biblical accounts is a bit of an allowance
>for free will-we need faith to believe it, or if we insist on rejecting it,
>we can delude ourselves into justifying our disbelief.
>
We fully agree here. I certainly would not classify my views as reactionary
since they are not the usual views.
>The volcano probably involved in the Exodus was Thera, the remnants of
>which are the island of Santorini. The eruption could have easily produced
>darkness which could be felt, and ash has been found in the Nile Delta
>region. Of course, Moses's foreknowledge of the event was miraculous.
>Bruins and Van der Plicht (Nature, 1996, 382:213-214) use the
>dendrochronological record of this event to propose an exact date for the
>Exodus and conquest of Canaan. Although it would have produced quite a
>tsunami, the mention of "wind" in the text supports the other theory.
>
The volcano you are referring to was Santorini (or Thera) which erupted in
1450 B.C. and destroyed the Minoan civilization on Crete. While it would have
produced a tsunami, the tsunami would have been on the northern, Mediterranean
coast of Egypt. There would have been no tsunami from this in the Red Sea.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm