Discussion Paper Two: The 1000-year Snow Storm
We know with some certainty that the whole of the North American continent has been covered by ice many times in the past, we call them Ice Ages, or periods of Glaciation.
I got to be thinking about what could cause such momentous occasions and this paper attempts to shed some light on these phenomena.
What if it is not the sun going colder, what if it is not caused by cold weather patterns at all!
What if it is caused by heat!
I diverge a little here as I bring your attention to a strange island in the Arctic Ocean called Nova Zembla. A long North-South Island well above the arctic circle, some 20 million years old, yet bares no scars caused by glaciation. No Fjords, not one!
I got to be thinking about how this could be. I then looked at the near by coasts, to the west there is evidence of glaciation, yet to the east none, this leads me to my discussion.
What if the Siberian traps which stretch out well into the Arctic Ocean around there were active, very active for say 1000 years.
The water would get warm, even hot; water vapour would be picked up by the prevailing winds and swept off to the east travelling long distances until those wet winds met the Alaskan mountains where they would dump their load as SNOW, lots of snow, and it would snow for 1000 years!
Now 20 meters of snow compacts down into about one meter of Ice, hence we get ice to a depth of 1000 meters in Alaska and beyond right across the content.
All that hot water would cause the ocean level to fall and the Bearing Sea Straight would close. The Gulf stream would strengthen and for a time The UK would benefit, then when the gulf stream could no longer cross the mid-Atlantic ridge that arm would fail and the UK would feel the cold and suffer its period of glaciation.
Meanwhile the Scandinavian mountains would get lots of snow caused mainly by the warm gulf stream waters, but that snow would not reach Nova Zembla!
The numbers stack up, the amount of water vapour to cause all that ice, the positions of the Ice fields, the water levels in the world’s oceans, all point to that heat under the eastern part of the Arctic Ocean to being the cause of those Ice Ages.
Is anyone looking under the Ocean or are politics getting in the way?
Michael Logician.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
Why was this published?
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Possibly because that is the way science is done, some one has an idea and floats it around for discussion.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
This description works for Alaska, being the barrier that pushes the humid air upward for adiabatic cooling. Maps I have seen of glaciations usually have at least Western Alaska devoid of an ice sheet.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Exactly Charles, the western slopes of Alaska would be bathed in warm air, very wet warm air and the hot ocean would keep the western lower slopes essentially ice free.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
The Map showing where Nova Zembla is off by just a tad! https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&thid=AMMS_9a2f457133ba732569b6c3d09a058c05&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fmetaldetectingworld.com%2f05_photo_gallery%2fsingles%2frussia_map_siberia.gif&exph=376&expw=474&q=siberia&selectedIndex=0&stid=6f9998bf-67e4-4644-072d-b9d342e26415&cbn=EntityAnswer&FORM=IRPRST&idpp=overlayview&ajaxhist=0
Shows the real Nova Zembla of the coast of Siberia, roughly alligned with the Ural Mountain range East of the Barents Sea.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I would remind critics that it takes rather a long time to evaporate 50 Cubic miles of ocean which is what was lost when the sea levels dropped!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
If the area of the oceans is 139,434,000 square miles wouldn’t the removal of 50 cubic miles only drop the water level by .002 ft 0r .02 inches?
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb, as the sea level falls, for every yard the area shrinks by an enormous amount!
The North sea disappears, Australia gets joined to Borneo. The arctic shrinks by a vast amount, Japan joins to Mainland China, Shri Lanka joins to India. The red sea becomes a lake as does the Mediterranean. My estimate of 50 cubic miles may be a bit light, perhaps more like 500! There was an awful lot of ice deposited.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
My calculation showed that a loss of 50 cubic miles of water would only lower the ocean level by .02 inches. (See above comment but there is a good chance my math is wrong bu still 50 MI^3 is a proverbial drop in the bucket for the oceans and even 500 mi^3 isn’t much.) I am of the opinion that the glaciers form less heat causing cooler summers and less melting. Cooler temperature = less evaporation = less heat added to atmosphere.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb, how about 1″ a year for One thousand years?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
If the ocean level dropped 1″/year it would mean that 2200 cubic miles of water was evaporated and deposited on the land every year.The ocean level would drop 83 feet in 1000 years (Bering Straight is 98 + feet deep.). You are talking about a lot of energy to evaporate that amount of water.
Herb
Photios
| #
Michael Clarke: “Nova Zembla. A long North-South Island well above the arctic circle, some 20 million years old, yet bares no scars caused by glaciation. No Fjords, not one!”
Wikipedia: “The coast of Novaya Zemlya is very indented, and it is the area with the largest number of fjords in the Russian Federation.”
Nuff said.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
There are Fjords and there are fjords, like those in Norway.
The island is very skinny and Water erosion caused by melting snow can cause similar erosion,
Nuff Said.
Reply
JaKo
| #
This whole treatise is rather confusing to me:
* Nova Zembla Island is indeed an island in Canada as shown on the article map — Nova Zembla aka Novaya Zemlya isn’t an island but an archipelago parting Barents and Kara Seas
* While the little Canadian island is indeed fjord free, this rather large archipelago (spans 800km ~ 500 st.miles) has countless fjords on the west and east shores, both and a few active glaciers. Please see the Google Maps…
* Siberian Traps are thought of being extinct for 1/4 billion (250 million) years and our latest glaciation is estimated to begin some 110k (110,000) years ago.
* The usual westerly winds are thought of being disturbed by a meridional jet-stream flow at the beginning of glaciation (happening right now BTW)…….
….. so I’m trying, but I can’t get the idea off the ground; perhaps that infamous Tsar Bomba could help me with that 😉
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Those Fjords can be attributed to recent water erosion, and yes small glaciation can and does occur but not to the extent that Norway endured. It would snow there in winter which may even have led to bigger glaciers but every spring the ice would melt due to the warm waters. AND I still believe that the Fjords on Novaya Zemlya (Thanks for the spelling) are largely due to melt water not to glaciation. One would need to go look at the river valley’s to see the state of the rocks there, smooth and rounded is my guess due to water erosion,, not scoured bare like the river valley’s in Norway.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Michael Clarke, I think you are on the right track.
What you are suggesting is that high energy ice is associated with global cooling. High energy ice can be defined as ice which forms at high altitudes, because it initiates from a hot sea surface. This is in contrast to low energy ice which forms at low elevations due to general cold weather.
Thinking about hot seas, it is worth noting that submarine spreading ridges cover a distance greater than 50,000 km and in some places are 800 km wide. These are locations where lava exudes from the mantel at temperatures of up to 1470oC. https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/04/mantle
Recent work using the Argo Buoy array shows hot plumes of sea water rising from these vents to heat the sea surface. This leaves us with the possibility that Earth’s core has variable activity, similar to the Sun. When the core shows heightened activity the surface develops high energy ice. See Ch.11, https://bosmin.com//PSL/PlanetsSatellitesLandforms.pdf The present indications are that the sea is generally heating, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been steadily rising since the 1850s. Henry’s Gas Law associates increasing CO2 with rising sea temperature. https://bosmin.com//HenrysLaw.pdf
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I think that general warming of the great oceans would lead to a wetter world, especially in the tropics which is NOT where all that snow fell!
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Michael,
Spreading ridges cover the poles as well as the tropics, and wind streams cover the whole world.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Robert, indeed there is a mid ocean ridge between the North American and Eurasian plates, right in the place where it would be most effective in heating up the Arctic ocean. This would be initially a slow process, until the Bearing straight closed when it would speed up.
For All the worlds oceans to heat up to evaporate 50 cubic miles of water would lead to global wetting, not specifically to the North American continent and to Northern Europe.
It is my thoughts that the heat has to be local to the Arctic, the reference to the Siberian traps was a trap, lol. Glad you spotted the mid-Arctic Ocean ridge.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Michael,
The NOAA record at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity compares the average humidity for the period 1979 to 2003 with that at 2013, and concludes “the specific humidity—the amount of water vapor–was well above average over land and ocean”.
This is consistent with a rising sea surface temperature and a rising CO2 level in the atmosphere. Ironically, it is the slightly hotter ocean that is driving the world to a cooler future.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
Evaporation is the removal of energy from water. That energy is not in the form of the temperature of the water but is in the internal structure (bonds) of the water.When the water droplets condense into larger droplets the absorbed energy is transferred to the atmosphere in the form of increased heat (kinetic energy) Therefore, because of the conservation of energy the increase in evaporation will cause an increase in atmospheric heat.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael, Robert and Herb,
Louis Elzevir, publisher of Galileo’s best known book, wrote in the preface to reader that a common saying was: “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
Michael began without defining much about the Arctic system upon which he focused attention. He just reviewed what I consider to be an observed fact of a shallow (relative to much of the Arctic Ocean bottom) that passes across the ocean quite near the North Pole. But he did not mention (accurately define) the nearly 4km deep basin just to the SE of this shallow ridge he described (defined) according the topography of which I have found and somewhat trust as being valid.
Then Robert refers to ‘average’ humidities which never exist. For only actually measured humidities exist. Then Herb wrote: “Evaporation is the removal of energy from water.” Which, for a moment, I considered might be an okay statement. But when I looked at the glossaries of two metrology textbook I found. “Evaporation: `The process by which a liquid changes into a gas.” “The change of phase of water from liquid water to water vapor.” The three phases of matter that I have learned are solid, liquid and gas. And I have learned that a gas is composed of independent atoms and molecules which at a first approximation have no attraction for one another.
I recently read: “Charles Rock, PhD, (right) and Jiangwei Yao, PhD, recently reviewed Richard Harris’ book about scientific research, titled “Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions.”
Not accurately defining the system, which one is tying to study, is sloppy science and a waste of one’s time.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
I Michail,
I believe you have discovered how to begin a discussion. Make the problem as confusing as possible.
“Several studies show that successful problem solving requires a substantial amount of qualitative reasoning. Good problem solvers do not rush in to apply a formula or an equation. Instead, they try to understand the problem situation: they consider alternative representation and relations among the variables.: ( Lauren B. Resnick, Mathematics and Science Learning: A New Conception,’Science ‘, April 29, 1983.
And before they can consider alternative representations and reactions among the variable, this have to identify what the variables are.
Problem: How would you designed and construction the Tower of Pisa? Patience Micheal, this has something significant to do with your problem,.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Leaning Tower of Pisa—I questioned: In what direction does it lean. And on the internet I read there were two other ancient leaning towers. One of which leaned the same direction as Pisa’s.
I call this to your attention because you clearly are a Logician with abilities that far surpass mine. There are pictures of these two towers which are described as leaning toward the South. Obviously the photos were taken from a position which was perpendicular (East or West, which I do not know) to the direction of the lean.
Now here is my puzzle. One side of the tower leans but the opposite side of the tower appears to be perfectly (very nearly so) VERTICAL. I claim to ‘understand’ what the builders of these towers were doing but I cannot understand the vertical side. So I cannot even understand why the towers are said to lean toward the South, based upon my ‘understanding’ of how the builders were probably determining (defining) vertical.
And other readers of this are invited to reason this puzzle as Michael reasons.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
As I searched again about the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I found that some have written that, as the first couple stories of the tower were constructed, they had initially leaned to the North instead of to the South. And I read that as more stories were added the tower began to lean to the South. What I did not read, but which must be a fact given this description of the tower’s change of lean, is that for some period of time it must have stood perfectly upright, without any lean, during its construction period of two centuries.
There seems to be a universal agreement that the cause of the changing lean is the lack of a stable foundation base (not bedrock).
Specifically, I read (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/70395/13-straight-facts-about-leaning-tower-pisa): “When construction resumed in 1272, the additional developments did not exactly help the tower’s posture. The stacking of additional stories atop the existing three jostled the building’s center of gravity, causing a reversal in the direction of its tilt. As the tower accrued its fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh stories, the once northward-leaning structure began to tip further and further south.”
Assuming shift of the direction of lean is accurate history, I cannot understand (explain) how the ‘jostling’ of the addition construction of the higher stories could have necessarily switched the center of the tower’s mass which was North of the center of its base (foundation) and made even more so by the addition of higher stories if it still leaned to the North as these stories were added. However I must admit that I do not know when the lean shifted from switched from North to South. But I can reason that sometime during the observed shift that it seems likely there was a period when the tower stood perfectly upright. Another question is: How is it that I have not read if the tower ever leaned to the East or to the West?
I can simply explain an original lean of the tower to the North if the builders were using a plumb bob to define (determine) ‘vertical’. It seems that time again nearly everyone (whether scientist or engineer or … ) ignores the centrifugal effect due to rotating Earth; which in the northern latitudes is in the direction toward the South (away from the polar axis about which it rotates). If the Earth was not rotating, the plumb bob at the end of its string, would hang directly beneath the upper end of its string. But centrifugal effect causes the plumb bob to hang to the South of the string’s upper end. Hence the string ‘leans’ to the North.
Now as stories are added to the tower; its center of mass moves upward And the centrifugal effect acting on its center of mass acts to ‘tip’ the tower to the South. And as the center of mass moves upward the ‘lever arm’ acting to tip the base (foundation) increases the ‘tilting’ action (force). Another factor about which I have not read is that ‘towers’ have a narrow base relative to the height of the building. So this creates a long lever acting to tilt the narrow base.
Now, it might seem to us that this centrifugal effect is so small (tiny) that it can be ignored because we cannot ‘feel’ it. However, it is a ‘real’ small effect which acts continuously and we have the unquestionable historical observational record of the Tower of Pisa’s increasing lean to the South since it does not have a ‘solid’ foundation.
So Michael, am I a practical Scientist who observes things? Or, am I singing a loony tune.?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You compose your discussion essays and after a good discussion begins your drop out. How come??? The topics you propose are, in my opinion, quite good and critically important to achieving a better understanding of NATURAL PHENOMENA.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
If you haven’t looked at Fluid Earth Viewer you should (must). For I just learned it was produced not by Scientists but by SCIENCE EDUCATORS. A team of 6, or so, lead by a director (Jason Cervenec) who only has a one year Masters degree in science education after being a biology major as a undergraduate.
When I learned this I immediately sent an email to him which began “Hi Jason,
To my surprise I have discovered that Fluid Earth Viewer (FEV) is not considered a SCIENTIFIC project (tool, instrument) but instead was intended to be only an EDUCATIONAL tool. And it seems FEV is still only being used as an educational tool at present. And I really want to have a dialogue (discussion) with you about education and science.”
I believe you should be interested in this because the code which is FEV was written by this group of young SCIENCE EDUCATORS, who, in my opinion, still do not understand what they have accomplished. But I am sure you can understand what they have accomplished by writing the code which is producing the interactive, dynamic, images of the entire world.every six hours as a SCIENCE EDUCATION PROJECT..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
How is it that you write a “Discussion Paper” and then become the one who stops discussing?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Michael,
How is it that you write a “Discussion Paper” and then become the one who stops discussing?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply