Was there only one Ice Age? (split from Quigley)

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

[VoxRat]

(There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW) sometimes you just have to say...

WTF?

[SteveF]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?

[Lucretius III]

(There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW) sometimes you just have to say...

WTF?

Even YECs can'y deny that fact that there are such things as Ice Ages, but as they only have 6,000 to 10,000 years to play around with they (without any evidence) state that there can only ever been the one due to the time limitiations they have to stick to , that occured some vague time after the waters of Ye Olde Bigge Fludde disappeared.
Just a case of ignoring anything that would show their belief in a young Earth for what it is ,the half thought out imaginings of a people who basically (through no fault of their own) didn't understand how things really work .

Interesting by our "friend "Oard again


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/where-does-ice-age-fit

[Dave Hawkins]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

[SteveF]

No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

I'm not aware of any evidence for it. I'm not an expert on the glacial stratigraphy of Japan, but I' under the impression it mainly involves mountain glaciation. For example:

Ono, Y et al. (2003) Present and last-glacial Equilibrium Line Altitudes (ELAs) in the Japanese high mountains. Zeitschrift Fur Geomorphologie, 47, 217-236.

Plots of present ELAs in Kamchatka Peninsula based on 317 firn-line measurements and 5 mass-balance studies revealed that the ELA has a steep gradient, rising inland from the Pacific coast, the main source of moisture, being toward the Sea of Okhotsk. In the Japanese high mountains, present perennial snow patches decrease in altitude steeply towards the Japan Sea, the main source of moisture, from the Pacific side, suggesting also a steep gradient of the hypothetical ELA over Japan. Calculation of the hypothetical ELA attempted on the basis of summer (JJA) air temperature and winter precipitation gives a value of 2970 m at Kuranosuke Cirque in the Northern Japanese Alps, and 4192 m on Mt. Fuji. The distribution of glacial landforms reveals that a similarly steep ELA gradient also existed in the last glacial period, suggesting a strong influence of the winter monsoon and the role of the Japan Sea as the main source of moisture. Tephrochronological studies reveal that glaciation occurred in the Japanese high mountains in MIS 6 (or 8), 5d, 4, 3 and 2, but the resolution of dating of tephra is not sufficient to determine whether the maximum advance occurred in MIS 6, (8), or 5d. The ELA depression during the last glaciation was much greater in MIS 3 and 4 than in MIS 2, reflecting a drastic decrease of snowfall in the latter. The major factor causing glacier fluctuations in the Japanese high mountains is sea surface temperature changes in the Japan Sea, controlled by sea-level changes and sea-ice extent.

Note the ELAs at many thousands of metres. Suigetsu is next to the sea. There is, of course, the complete absence of evidence in the Suigetsu sediments for glacial activity.

[Obd]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

Bullshit, there were 2 ice ages and no. 3 is coming in 2009.

[ericmurphy]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

No, Dave, there is zero evidence that there was only one ice age. Go try (and fail) to find evidence that there was only one ice age.

Do you think there was an ice age in the 17th century? Because varves were forming during the 17th century. Even you admit that.

[Pappy Jack]

(There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW) sometimes you just have to say...

WTF?
Many, many, many times over. Or as P J O'Rourke puts it even more emphatically,

What the f***ing f***?

[Febble]

Split from here (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1005).

[SteveF]

I'm not sure this split was a good idea as the OP now contains material relevant to the Quigley paper (as do my two responses). It just also happens to have the bollocks about 1 ice age attached.

[Febble]

OK, I'll remerge

[SteveF]

It's like the Hokey Cokey!

[VoxRat]

Here's a brief layman's overview of the real-world geologists' take on the matter (http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=geology&cdn=education&tm=32&gps=49_1118_1128_586&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/), just to give Dave a starting point for an exposition of his alternative reality take on the matter, on the off-chance he actually intends to defend his "BTW" remark.

Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time.Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals. Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between about 800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between about 350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene to Quaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during portions of the Ordovician and Silurian (between about 460 and 430 million years ago).

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/Images/fourglaciations.gif

During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred . For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years.

If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances.

[Obd]

Well since Dave is absolutely certain that there has only been one ice age, he can obviously tell us what procedures and techniques can be used to identify an ice age and how this is applied to come to the conclusion that there has only been one ice age.

[Febble]

Actually don't have time to remerge right now. If JB can do it that's fine, otherwise you'll have to cope.

[SteveF]

Fine by me.

[deadman_932]

Stand by for a deluge...a noachian wave of AiG and ICR bullshit.

[Pappy Jack]

Well since Dave is absolutely certain that there has only been one ice age, he can obviously tell us what procedures and techniques can be used to identify an ice age and how this is applied to come to the conclusion that there has only been one ice age.
All you have to do is read and understand the Bible. Once you view geology from a biblical perspective, everything just makes so much more sense.

I have challenged Dave's assertions concerning evidences of ice ages and the interpretation of those evidences before elsewhere, but Dave was in 'big deal' mode then and never really responded to the points I made. I will be interested in taking up the debate here if Dave pursues it, although as he is already spreading himself pretty thinly it wouldn't seem to be a wise debating strategy.

[Obd]

Well since Dave is absolutely certain that there has only been one ice age, he can obviously tell us what procedures and techniques can be used to identify an ice age and how this is applied to come to the conclusion that there has only been one ice age.
All you have to do is read and understand the Bible. Once you view geology from a biblical perspective, everything just makes so much more sense.

I have challenged Dave's assertions concerning evidences of ice ages and the interpretation of those evidences before elsewhere, but Dave was in 'big deal' mode then and never really responded to the points I made. I will be interested in taking up the debate here if Dave pursues it, although as he is already spreading himself pretty thinly it wouldn't seem to be a wise debating strategy.

IIRC we've had this discussion with Dave on IIDB too and it was pretty pointless (Well I always learn a thing or two from the experts, but the discussion wasn't going anywhere). The discussion could be interesting, but Dave would have to clearly address the issues I raised in that post.

[Notta_skeptic]

All you have to do is read and understand the Bible. Once you view geology from a biblical perspective, everything just makes so much more sense.
Strange, I don't recall any Bible verses or stories about an ice age. Where are they?

[Jet Black]

the OP and relevant posts to suigetsu were duplicated and moved to the original thread, in case this one takes off as an independent ice age discussion.

Jet Black

[Jet Black]

All you have to do is read and understand the Bible. Once you view geology from a biblical perspective, everything just makes so much more sense.
Strange, I don't recall any Bible verses or stories about an ice age. Where are they?

no, it's jut something they stick in between the flood and now... lasts a few hundred years and it's a bit of an embarassment in terms of "age". See there is lots of evidence for there being an ice age (more than one actually) so they have to stick it in somewhere.

[Notta_skeptic]

I always wondered why fundies will accept the evidence for an ice age but not for an old earth. If it's not mentioned in the bible, it doesn't exist, does it?

[Jet Black]

I always wondered why fundies will accept the evidence for an ice age but not for an old earth. If it's not mentioned in the bible, it doesn't exist, does it?

I think it's all the giant sodding glaciers and rocks and obvious glacial erosion. My wife's grandfather was an expert on the last ice age (3rd one?) apparently everything he spent 60 years of his life studying was bollocks. He probably faked his results too.

[Obd]

I always wondered why fundies will accept the evidence for an ice age but not for an old earth. If it's not mentioned in the bible, it doesn't exist, does it?

From a YEC point of view it doesn't matter if it's not mentioned in the bible as long as it doesn't contradict the bible. Besides think of what possibilities 'a single ice age' offer for 'explaining' a global flood.

[Ian Nerr]

Ban this idiot and his lies.

It's one thing to make unsupported assertions and post no evidence. He constantly claims to have evidence for his claims but never presents any.

Dave isn't even a joke anymore.

[ck1]

Ban this idiot and his lies.

It's one thing to make unsupported assertions and post no evidence. He constantly claims to have evidence for his claims but never presents any.

Dave isn't even a joke anymore.

You don't have to read these threads, you know.

[David B]

Ban this idiot and his lies.

It's one thing to make unsupported assertions and post no evidence. He constantly claims to have evidence for his claims but never presents any.

Dave isn't even a joke anymore.

You don't have to read these threads, you know.

I do, though.

And get to learn lots of cool stuff from the people who are better informed than I.

Isn't there some law someone came up with somewhere called the Law of Unintended Consequences? Or something like that?

Dave intends to make the case that science is bunk, and what he actually does is enable people to learn all sorts of cool things about science:D

David B (fears that he is a lost cause, but lives in hope)

[RAFH]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?

There is davey? Well, then present it!

Enough of this silly repetition of your claims of evidence. If you have it, present it, don't just go on and on with your STOOPID, FUNDAMENTIA inspired assertions of "There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW"

And I really like to know what kind of evidence would show there was only one. Hard to show that something wasn't. It may well be you just haven't found the evidence for it. What a silly twit you are davey hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all).

[ericmurphy]

Okay, Dave: you claim there is "strong evidence" that there has been only one ice age in the entire history of earth. I'm not sure what such evidence would look like even in principle, but now is your chance to actually provide some.

Given your previous failures to provide evidence for any of your bald assertions, I'm pessimistic. But it seems like sooner or later you should be able to provide evidence to support at least one of your assertions. Maybe this is the one.

[RAFH]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age?

You mean the ice age that never got anywhere near Lake Suigetsu?No, I mean the only Ice Age. And how do you know it never got near Suigetsu?

Better yet, davey, since you are making the assertion there was only one and it somehow got to the area around Suigetsu, you are supposed to present the evidence that supports those claims.

Get to davey. Start presenting evidence.

As for evidence against, as noted, it's very difficult to show something wasn't, just like I can present evidence you aren't a horrible, nasty, vile, brutal, mean, careless, vicious, inhuman, sadistic criminal that has committed thousands, nay, tens of thousands of hideous crimes, for all I know, you could be Hitler and Charlie Manson, though it's not very likely. I certainly don't have any evidence you aren't any of those things.

But going with absence of evidence as supportive though not conclusive, there is a complete lack of glaciation features in the area. It is not at a high latitude nor a high elevation normally associated with glaciation. There are no large deposits of loess nor areas of exposed glacially worn rock and the soils in the area are relatively deep. None of those would eliminate the possibility of the area having been glaciated but nothing I have ever seen tends to support your being a horrible mass murderer either.

So do we go with the notion that if something is not conclusively invalidated, it is then likely? Because if that's your standard of evidence, I'm a calling your sheriff and report we have no evidence to support the notion you are not a horrible mass murderer so he oughta lock your ass up, even the FUNDAMENTIA ass part.

[RAFH]

I always wondered why fundies will accept the evidence for an ice age but not for an old earth. If it's not mentioned in the bible, it doesn't exist, does it?

I think it's all the giant sodding glaciers and rocks and obvious glacial erosion. My wife's grandfather was an expert on the last ice age (3rd one?) apparently everything he spent 60 years of his life studying was bollocks. He probably faked his results too.

Yep, and that wonking great chunk of ice up in Alberta/British Columbia they call the Columbia Ice Field doesn't exist either, it's just a trick of the light.

And it was obviously the YOBF that carved the fjords and the great valleys of the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Sierras, Cascades, Pyrenees, New Zealand, and one lotta of other mountains. Funny how those 'gorges' are so radically different from the usual water carved gorge.

[VoxRat]

Ban this idiot and his lies.

It's one thing to make unsupported assertions and post no evidence. He constantly claims to have evidence for his claims but never presents any.

Dave isn't even a joke anymore.

You don't have to read these threads, you know.I know how irritating Dave can be. And I'm pretty he sure he does, too. (Why else insert outrageous "BTW" remarks into a discussion - remarks that he has no intention of defending, but just throws them in to annoy, apparently?)

But I don't think Dave comes anywhere near the bannination threshold. I suspect Ian will probably agree with me after a moment's reflection.

Dave makes an excellent chewtoy, and really great practice for the real thing. Arguing with creos trying to subvert your kids' school system, for instance. They would love nothing better than to annoy the hell out of the real-worlders, get them to lose their cool, incite them to profanity and calls for bannination, all without uttering one "naughty" word.

It's become something of an excuse/rationalization/figleaf/joke that we "do it for the lurkers". Well, I doubt there are many "lurkers" here who don't already have a pretty good idea who's connected with reality and who's not. But there are "lurkers" (or the equivalent) watching the discussions at school board meetings, letters to the editor of local newspapers, etc. who are much more impressed by a dispassionate exposition of real-world knowledge than they are by vituperation and requests to STFU.

And while Dave does have an unfailing ability to make creo/IDism come off even worse than before he came to its aid, there is this uncanny tendency for rebuttals to his nonsense to lead to really interesting stuff. I can't really explain it; but it's fun.

[VoxRat]

As for evidence against, as noted, it's very difficult to show something wasn't, just like I can present evidence you aren't a horrible, nasty, vile, brutal, mean, careless, vicious, inhuman, sadistic criminal that has committed thousands, nay, tens of thousands of hideous crimes, for all I know, you could be Hitler and Charlie Manson, though it's not very likely. I certainly don't have any evidence you aren't any of those things. ....Well, I think the evidence that Hitler died in 1945 is fairly conclusive. But there is no compelling evidence that "Dave" is not Charlie Manson. And by "Dave's" own logic, we would be fools to leap to the conclusion that he isn't.

[RAFH]

Ban this idiot and his lies.

It's one thing to make unsupported assertions and post no evidence. He constantly claims to have evidence for his claims but never presents any.

Dave isn't even a joke anymore.

You don't have to read these threads, you know.I know how irritating Dave can be. And I'm pretty he sure he does, too. (Why else insert outrageous "BTW" remarks into a discussion - remarks that he has no intention of defending, but just throws them in to annoy, apparently?)

But I don't think Dave comes anywhere near the bannination threshold. I suspect Ian will probably agree with me after a moment's reflection.

Dave makes an excellent chewtoy, and really great practice for the real thing. Arguing with creos trying to subvert your kids' school system, for instance. They would love nothing better than to annoy the hell out of the real-worlders, get them to lose their cool, incite them to profanity and calls for bannination, all without uttering one "naughty" word.

It's become something of an excuse/rationalization/figleaf/joke that we "do it for the lurkers". Well, I doubt there are many "lurkers" here who don't already have a pretty good idea who's connected with reality and who's not. But there are "lurkers" (or the equivalent) watching the discussions at school board meetings, letters to the editor of local newspapers, etc. who are much more impressed by a dispassionate exposition of real-world knowledge than they are by vituperation and requests to STFU.

And while Dave does have an unfailing ability to make creo/IDism come off even worse than before he came to its aid, there is this uncanny tendency for rebuttals to his nonsense to lead to really interesting stuff. I can't really explain it; but it's fun.

Absolutely! davey is the best example of the horrible results of the dread disease of FUNDAMENTIA, the assholification of the brain. Without him, we would could only describe what it does and most people probably wouldn't believe that any disease could cause such terrible symptoms. It's worse than Alzheimers, Dysentery, Rickets, the Plague and zombieism combined.

I just don't know what we'd do without davey.

[VoxRat]

...
Absolutely! davey is the best example of the horrible results of the dread disease of FUNDAMENTIA, the assholification of the brain. Without him, we would could only describe what it does and most people probably wouldn't believe that any disease could cause such terrible symptoms. It's worse than Alzheimers, Dysentery, Rickets, the Plague and zombieism combined.

I just don't know what we'd do without davey.VoxRat, who is something of pompous classicist wannabe, likes to spell it "fundEmentia", emphasizing the "dEmentia" aspect of the disorder, even though it's caused by fundAmentalism.

But I agree, Dave is a boon to Darwinists everywhere.


ETA:
VoxRat, so far as he knows, may have coined the term "fundementia" and therefore may have a right to opine on its spelling.

[Constant Mews]

Ban this idiot and his lies.

It's one thing to make unsupported assertions and post no evidence. He constantly claims to have evidence for his claims but never presents any.

Dave isn't even a joke anymore.

You don't have to read these threads, you know.I know how irritating Dave can be. And I'm pretty he sure he does, too. (Why else insert outrageous "BTW" remarks into a discussion - remarks that he has no intention of defending, but just throws them in to annoy, apparently?)

But I don't think Dave comes anywhere near the bannination threshold. I suspect Ian will probably agree with me after a moment's reflection.

Dave makes an excellent chewtoy, and really great practice for the real thing. Arguing with creos trying to subvert your kids' school system, for instance. They would love nothing better than to annoy the hell out of the real-worlders, get them to lose their cool, incite them to profanity and calls for bannination, all without uttering one "naughty" word.

It's become something of an excuse/rationalization/figleaf/joke that we "do it for the lurkers". Well, I doubt there are many "lurkers" here who don't already have a pretty good idea who's connected with reality and who's not. But there are "lurkers" (or the equivalent) watching the discussions at school board meetings, letters to the editor of local newspapers, etc. who are much more impressed by a dispassionate exposition of real-world knowledge than they are by vituperation and requests to STFU.

And while Dave does have an unfailing ability to make creo/IDism come off even worse than before he came to its aid, there is this uncanny tendency for rebuttals to his nonsense to lead to really interesting stuff. I can't really explain it; but it's fun.

Regrettably, I have an additional problem with Dave. He makes Christians look like fools and idiots. He is working against the cause of Christ. Theologically speaking, Dave is a tool of Satan.

Take that as you will. :crucified:

[Lucretius III]

All you have to do is read and understand the Bible. Once you view geology from a biblical perspective, everything just makes so much more sense.
Strange, I don't recall any Bible verses or stories about an ice age. Where are they?

This is their get out clause (from the link to AiG above,my emphasis)

Since the Flood offers a viable explanation for the Ice Age, one could expect that the Ice Age would be mentioned in the Bible. It is possible that the book of Job, written about 500 years or so after the Flood, may include a reference to the Ice Age in Job 38:29–30, which says, “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.” However, Job could have observed frost and lake ice during winter in Palestine, especially if temperatures were colder because of the Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age is not directly discussed in the Bible is probably because the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the region where the Bible was written. Only an increase in the snow coverage of Mt. Hermon and possibly more frequent snowfalls on the high areas of the Middle East would have been evident to those living in Palestine.



Well seems very scientific to me honest :)

[Ray Moscow]

Last ice age -- ended about 8,000 BCE

Book of Job -- written about 500 BCE

Yep, Job was definitely talking about THE ice age.

[Febble]

Last ice age -- ended about 8,000 BCE

Book of Job -- written about 500 BCE

Yep, Job was definitely talking about THE ice age.

That's interesting. Because even Dave puts the Ice Age immediately post-Flood - what would that be: 3000 BCE max?

ETA: Oh right. They put Job 500 years after the Flood. Well, what's a couple or three millenia between friends?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Last ice age -- ended about 8,000 BCE

Book of Job -- written about 500 BCE

Yep, Job was definitely talking about THE ice age.

That's interesting. Because even Dave puts the Ice Age immediately post-Flood - what would that be: 3000 BCE max?

ETA: Oh right. They put Job 500 years after the Flood. Well, what's a couple or three millenia between friends?
On another forum Dave gave an exact date for the Flood, 2743BC. He also told us the ice age was caused by the Walt Brown "fountains of the deep" spewing water into space, where it froze and fell back on the northern latitudes (and quick froze the mammoths). He didn't tell us how long it lasted though.

[Pendaric]

One definition of an ice age is a period when there are ice sheets at both hemispheres. By that definition we are currently in an ice age.

[Ray Moscow]

On another forum Dave gave an exact date for the Flood, 2743BC. He also told us the ice age was caused by the Walt Brown "fountains of the deep" spewing water into space, where it froze and fell back on the northern latitudes (and quick froze the mammoths). He didn't tell us how long it lasted though.

How can anyone with even a smattering of science knowledge believe something like that?!!!! :D

Yes, I know something about Genesis, and it never even hints at such nonsense (although it does hint at, and actually states, other nonsense).

[Notta_skeptic]

On another forum Dave gave an exact date for the Flood, 2743BC. He also told us the ice age was caused by the Walt Brown "fountains of the deep" spewing water into space, where it froze and fell back on the northern latitudes (and quick froze the mammoths). He didn't tell us how long it lasted though.How can anyone with even a smattering of science knowledge believe something like that?!!!!
You can answer your own question easily.

[Occam's Aftershave]

On another forum Dave gave an exact date for the Flood, 2743BC. He also told us the ice age was caused by the Walt Brown "fountains of the deep" spewing water into space, where it froze and fell back on the northern latitudes (and quick froze the mammoths). He didn't tell us how long it lasted though.

How can anyone with even a smattering of science knowledge believe something like that?!!!! :D

Yes, I know something about Genesis, and it never even hints at such nonsense (although it does hint at, and actually states, other nonsense).
What's even funnier is how that date was derived. Dave got 2743BC from an 1860's book on Egypt by a British crackpot named Charles Piazzi Smyth. Smyth got his Flood time by adding together a bunch of separate pre-published dates (from Biblical historians, other archaeologists, and even astrologers!) then averaging them to get the TRUE date. :eek::eek::eek: I shit you not.

It's pretty much impossible to tell what little bits of YEC flotsam and jetsam will wash through and stick to Dave's fundy brain.

[Pappy Jack]

On another forum Dave gave an exact date for the Flood, 2743BC. He also told us the ice age was caused by the Walt Brown "fountains of the deep" spewing water into space, where it froze and fell back on the northern latitudes (and quick froze the mammoths). He didn't tell us how long it lasted though.

How can anyone with even a smattering of science knowledge believe something like that?!!!! :D

Yes, I know something about Genesis, and it never even hints at such nonsense (although it does hint at, and actually states, other nonsense).
What's even funnier is how that date was derived. Dave got 2743BC from an 1860's book on Egypt by a British crackpot named Charles Piazzi Smyth. Smyth got his Flood time by adding together a bunch of separate pre-published dates (from Biblical historians, other archaeologists, and even astrologers!) then averaging them to get the TRUE date. :eek::eek::eek: I shit you not.

It's pretty much impossible to tell what little bits of YEC flotsam and jetsam will wash through and stick to Dave's fundy brain.
[trip down memory lane]Ahhhh, Piazzi Smyth. How well I remember Dave's problems with understanding how the value of pi could be integrated into the dimensions of the GP without sooperdooper highly advanced pre-fludde scientific knowledge being handed down by the perfesser-type biblical patriarchs (shoot, it may even have been that Noah feller hisself), not to mention coded information about the precise distance of the AU and so very much more. Ahhhh, again.[/trip down memory lane]

[Pappy Jack]

You say Suigetsu isn't glacial runoff? Not now ... You're right. But how about during the Ice Age? (There is strong evidence that there was only ONE Ice Age BTW)

And please ... On the other thread ... I would like to know how you think Three Sisters and Suigetsu are so different?
Dave, trying not to heckle ;), but this is a useful starting point to begin considering ice age effects in Asia in general and, to a lesser extent, Japan as well. It may lead you to conclusions about the last ice age, its timescale and the possible implications for your 'glacial runoff .... during the Ice Age' scenario.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEURASIA.html

ETA: A more general, but equally interesting, online resource on ice ages and climate cycles can be found here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

Within the last referenced link there is this fascinating article on Temperatures from Fossil Shells (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/forams.htm) tracing temperature variations back 100 million years.

[Pappy Jack]

Dave, you may also be interested in Richard A Muller's (http://muller.lbl.gov/) site where you can find, more specifically, the Preface (http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/IceAgeTheories.html) and Chapter 1 (http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html) of Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes, co-authored with Gordon MacDonald.

[Monad]

Was there only one Ice Age?

No.


Glad to be of service :)

Any more questions with such easy answers please feel free to field them to me - it does my confidence no end of good :)