Giant oyster shell shows the sea near Taiwan was up to 3m higher, several degrees hotter 7,000 years ago

Sea levels, Taipei, Oyster Shell

By Jo Nova

Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone reports on yet another paper that shows things were much hotter back in the early Holocene when there were hardly any coal fired power plants, and cars were just molecules spread across hematite deposits, emitting nothing.

Awkwardly, carbon dioxide levels were very low during this five thousand year Monster Heatwave, so climate modelers are forever trying to erase the hot Holocene, it’s just that the dang evidence keeps turning up in the damnedest of places.

In 2002 construction workers in Taipei dug up a giant oyster shell, and a whole oyster reef, rather improbably in the metropolitan area. This was 20 kilometers from the ocean where oysters are not supposed to grow.

One particular oyster shell was especially hard to ignore because it was a 42cm across. When it was carbon-14 dated, it clocked in as 7,500 years old. This particular kind of oyster is not found around Taipei any more (even in the ocean), but is found in colder waters around Japan and Korea. So the researchers wondered if this meant the oceans were somehow improbably higher but cooler at the time. They also wanted to find out if these oysters died out in Taipei because of global warming.  Instead it turns out the ocean there was much warmer and quite a lot higher.

So they sampled the heck out of this shell. They took so many data points they could figure out the seasonal swings from four years in a row in what was somewhere around 5,500 BC. Somehow even when CO2 levels were perfect, the water temperature swings around quite a lot. Neolithic people probably prayed for better weather, rolled some runes or read some tea leaves. These were early climate models and five thousand years later, seasonal models have not improved much.

Sea levels, Taipei, Oyster Shell

Given that these oysters like to live 1 to 3m below the surface, the seas then must have been 1 to 3 meters above where they are now. Which gives us that awkward truth, yet again, that everywhere we look 7,000 years ago the seas were 1 – 2 meters higher than where they are today. Our seas are only rising at 1mm a year, (or 3mm if you believe the adjusted satellites).  How could that be unless the natural world was much hotter, frying and expanding the oceans and melting the ice caps to some degree?

And indeed, current winter water temperatures around Taipei on our Catastrophe-Earth  are 14–16oC but back 7,500 years ago researchers suggest the water in winter ranged from 15 to a shocking 23oC.

And if you’re wondering, the big oyster shell was not just carried there by some fisherman long ago — it was found in a  muddy black silt clay layer that was more than 5-m thick and filled with other marine remnants above and below that. The researchers dated other things in that stack going back to about 10,000 years ago.

The researchers concluded as drily as possible “The disappearance of this type of oyster in Taiwan during the late Holocene should not be due to a warming trend.

Indeed.

Sea levels, Taipei, Oyster Shell

So yet again, we find something made the Earth a lot hotter 7,000 years ago, and yet the corals survived, the koalas managed and the extinction apocalypse never came. Sensible people would stop throwing money at the wind to control these natural swings that we can’t predict.

REFERENCE

Li H-C, Mii H-S, Liu T-K, et al. (2024) AMS 14C Dating and Stable Isotope Analysis on an 8 kyr Oyster Shell from Tapei Basin: Sea level and SST changes. Radiocarbon. Published online 2024:1-15. doi:10.1017/RDC.2023.117

9.9 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

66 comments to Giant oyster shell shows the sea near Taiwan was up to 3m higher, several degrees hotter 7,000 years ago

  • #
    David Maddison

    Fancy that.

    The climate changes. And in geologically short periods. And even within historical times such as we know from the Minoan, Egyptian, Roman and Medieval climate optima.

    That’s something completely unbeknown to climate catastrophists who subscribe to the Aristotlean view of a static and unchanging world.

    240

  • #
    David Maddison

    Awkwardly, carbon dioxide levels were very low during this five thousand year Monster Heatwave, so climate modelers are forever trying to erase the hot Holocene,

    7,000 years ago atmospheric CO2 levels became dangerously low at around 260ppm. There would have been a mass extinction event beginning at 200ppm.

    It’s good nature has corrected this deficiency and CO2 is increasing. Hopefully it will get to 800-1000ppm.

    330

    • #
      TdeF

      This period is a real puzzle. CO2 in the air is small, 98% being in the ocean. So how can the water be hot and CO2 at a record low?

      My total belief is that physical chemistry, not mankind, dominates CO2 levels. Especially the balance between the ocean and the air above. Comparing air and water, only one molecule in 700 is air. (350x weight and 2x the number given H2O is about half the weight of air molecules.)

      Basically the CO2 in the top layer has to reflect the CO2 in the air because of the ultra high speed of exchange using kinetic transfer evaporation and absorption aka Henry’s Law.

      So my instinctive conclusion is that the high temperature continuously melted a lot of fresh water for a top layer depleted in gas, like rivers of fresh water, an anaerobic top layer metres thick. And it took thousands of years for the CO2 elevator to get working again, bringing CO2 steadily from the depths.

      We get this with Carbon 14, where the top layer reflects the air. The alarmists call it ocean acidification when given that the oceans are all alkali, is actually neutralization as the drops from drinking water 8 to the neutral 7.

      It would have hit plant life hard, creating desertification in that period. And may explain some of the mass migrations of the period especially to the Northern part of Europe, previously covered in one km of solid ice.

      Fascinating stuff. And demonstrates the incredibly silly idea that humans control CO2 in any way.

      191

      • #
        TdeF

        All our emitted fossil fuel CO2 is nothing in total. Simply returning to the air what came from the air and the water.

        The popular story that the vast ocean, even the surface is ‘saturated’ with CO2 is nonsense.

        Coca cola has a pH of 2.52 and a concentration of 6gm/litre of CO2, 3000x Sea water with 2.5mg/litre of CO2.

        If you don’t believe how much CO2 can be dissolved, throw in a menthos. and watch the power of dissolved CO2. By the way, there is no chemical reaction. It is just the rough surface of the Menthos providing the catalyst for CO2 to come out of solution as a gas.

        101

        • #
          TdeF

          Saturated?

          The 2.5mg/litre of dissolved CO2 in ocean water is 0.25% by weight. Perhaps 0.1% by number as CO2 is much heavier. (48 vs 20), one in a thousand molecules.

          If ALL of the 2% of world CO2 in the air went into the water, CO2 in the ocean would increase by 1/50th of 0.25% or from 0.250% to 0.255%. How can that be saturated?

          Many of the popular statements are just made up nonsense quoted as science fact. What is surprising is that there is any CO2 in the air at all.

          111

      • #
        Broadie

        Maybe the CO2 had become incorporated into the shells of large oysters (trying to stay on topic), other shell fish, diatoms, plankton etc?

        May be this was a period of long photo periods / low cloud cover with CO2 being incorporated into photosynthetic organisms.

        30

        • #
          David A

          We do know that, despite the 2 m higher sea levels (immensely more melted fresh water in the ocean) the gulf stream and ocean currents did not shut down and cause an ice age, or even a mini ice age, yet todays climate “science” funded crowd is convinced that 1.5 mm rise a year, when SL is 2000 mm less this warm period, will plunge the world into catastrophic cooling.

          10

      • #
        Richard C in NZ

        TdeF >Basically the CO2 in the top layer has to reflect the CO2 in the air because of the ultra high speed of exchange

        My understanding of the reason is there’s no real surface barrier as if the water was a solid. The interface is neither air nor water.

        At a molecular level at the AO interface, nanometers, there’s an intermingling with no definable “surface”.

        A bit deeper is where it gets interesting in terms of radiative energy transfer. The IPCC speculates there’s LW “air-sea fluxes” (air to sea). They have no evidence of that. Defies all sorts of laws and budgets, including their own, but they run with it anyway.

        In-situ oceanographic studies and medical laser physics back in the 1970s determined an effective LW infrared penetration of 10 microns, max 100. 10 is a bit more than 1/10 the thickness of a human hair, 100 a bit more than the average. Not worth considering in a glassy doldrums day let alone a wind-swept choppy frothy day.

        Peter Minnett came up with a bizarre “skin layer” theory to explain the purported “air-sea fluxes” but that is an insulation theory – not a heat transfer theory. Not quantified globally either.

        The AO interface is something of an obscure battleground for all the processes but the IPCC resorts to abstract narratives like Summary For Policymakers or Technical Summary to distract from the minute detail that stands in the way of a simple story.

        CO2 exchange is one flank, energy transfer is the other.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          Henry’s Law works in a laboratory. The exchange is proportional to the concentrations on both sides and air pressure and temperature. It is essentially a kinematic exchange similar to leaving a planet, an escape velocity to exit the water surface. I have on idea on the absorption side, but suspect it is very complex. There is no need to create visualization models at a molecular level.

          And there are very important factors which take it beyond Henry’s law in a laboratory.

          1. absorption is found to increase as the fourth power of the wind velocity. Which is a huge effect.
          2. wind produces waves and droplets. Droplets have huge surface area relative to volume and the ocean from which they came.
          3. mechanical force as waves crash into the ocean. You see the aqua areas on a bow wave, full of air.
          4. rain, droplet and their ability to absorb gases and plummet into the ocean.
          5. dissociation where CO2 is turned into many ions and dissociated, meaning only a small % remains as gaseous CO2.
          6. The enormous depth of the ocean, on average 3.5Km at one atmosphere per 10 metres. And CO2 becomes liquid at 50 metres, something we do not see in our normal lives where dry ice sublimates direclty into CO2.
          7. that water variation in temperature is very small, so expansion is small and gases stay locked in streams and currents which can cycle in gyres but also upwell and dive at continental boundaries. This is completely unlike CO2 in air where expansion is huge producing updrafts and mixing. Hot air has the same lifting force as hydrogen, which is why we get thunderheads, tornadoes, tropical storms/hurricanes/tempests/typhoons.

          But overall I don’t think we need a skin layer theory to explain the rapid exchange of CO2. Wind, waves and droplets and rain will do.

          30

  • #
    Stuart

    Terrific piece of writing and reporting, Jo.

    250

    • #

      Yes Jo Nova blog right on the ball as usual. Thanks Jo.

      150

    • #
      spangled drongo

      Yes, thanks Jo for this very appropriate information.
      It agrees with so much other factual data.
      Just like those glaciers with the remains of thick forests that once grew under them.
      That required increased warming of 10c – 20c in order to happen.

      90

  • #
  • #
    Neville

    Good find Jo and never forget that even Wiki admits that the Eemian temps ( 130 K to 115 K BP) were much hotter than today and sea levels then were 6 to 9 metres higher than our SLs today in 2024.
    And the genuine Co2 Coalition scientists also tell us the same story using proper peer reviewed studies.
    Therefore nothing unusual about our temps or SLs today at all.

    220

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      C’mon man, the Earth is obviously in d’ Nile, in the pay of ‘big oil’, a misguided deplorable deluded follower of that ‘convicted felon’ Orange Man Bad.

      We must battle carbon – it’s our greatest enemy – it’s existential, for The Plan’s sake.

      NB. Mt Everest’s summit is capped by limestone, an ancient seabed thrust high: ‘tis amazing the places oysters will go…

      220

      • #
        Sambar

        “NB. Mt Everest’s summit is capped by limestone, an ancient seabed thrust high: ‘tis amazing the places oysters will go”

        Mount Everest, the great “Dilemma”. After all this tallest of earths mountains is both growing higher and getting smaller at the same time!
        Tectonic pressure as India pushes north causing an increase versus the relentless grinding of erosion, causing a decrease.
        What a problem.
        Damn it, above my pay grade, I’ll walk the dog in the rain instead, oh wait, its not raining. More problems.
        I might contact one of those oft advertised help lines or maybe speak with a medical practitioner maybe there is a medication that can ease my anxiety.

        130

        • #
          Neville

          Sambar you should ring Flannery he knows a lot about nothing and according to Tim we should’ve been suffering a terrible drought for the last 14 years and SLs flooding our Aussie coast and GBR a lost cause etc.

          140

          • #
            TdeF

            Floods are part of the drought process. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a drought. It would be the climate. Flim Flannery’s statement that droughts would be longer and more frequent is self contradictory. If you get enough frequent droughts in shorter time, you need regular rain to define them. And then there is no drought. Or if all the droughts join up, there are fewer droughts and you just have a desert with no droughts.

            60

          • #
            Froggy

            Neville, I was wondering why he bought that nice weekender on the shores of the Hawkesbury River….apparently it never floods there !

            20

      • #
        David Maddison

        I’ve been to Mt Everest on the Tibet side and there are vast numbers of marine fossils everywhere (mostly 520 to 450 million years old, Ordovician to middle Cambrian), and also Nautilus fossils (which I think are much younger). And then there’s all that Himilayan rock salt (laid down 600 and 540 million years ago). Warmists would have trouble explaining these things because they don’t conform to their staticist world view.

        110

        • #
          TdeF

          It reminds me of the original defence of the Bible after Darwin’s theory of evolution and the discovery of prehistoric animal bones.

          The religious establishment suggested the fossils were placed deep in the soil as a test by God of our literal story of creation and the flood. Various people had worked out the age of the world to the day a few thousand years ago. Dinosaurs from 150 million years ago seriously strained the narrative.

          In fact the whole episode of the collision of the Bible story and archaeology turned out to be a test of our credulity. As do the facts here that CO2 was at a minimum when temperatures were much higher. How does that work if CO2 is the controller of planetary temperature?

          Unintentionally science has always been the enemy of religion, not that was intended. Many scientists were dedicated religious people, even monks like Copernicus. But so does the idea that one religion is right and all others are wrong. And Climate Change is a government created and politician led and legally enacted religion. In previous times heretics were burned at the stake to teach them a lesson. It was always about hell fire. And still is. Boiling oceans though is new.

          50

  • #
    Neville

    Again here’s the Co2 Coalition’s Fact 15 about the much hotter Eemian temps and 8 c warmer than today.

    https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-last-interglacial-was-8c-14f-warmer-than-today/

    “Recent research by the Niels Bohr Institute (Dahl-Jensen 2013) was the first to target ice accumulated in Greenland during the previous interglacial period, known as the Eemian. The results revealed that the Eemian interglacial warm period, between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, was much warmer than previously thought. In fact, it was, 8°C (14.4°F) warmer than today. The implications are enormous. Even though the temperatures during the Eemian were 2.5°C (4.5°F) higher than even the most aggressive IPCC predictions, the Greenland ice sheet lost only a quarter of its mass. While 25% is significant, it is far less than the predictions of total ice elimination in response to far less warming. Also, polar bears evolved about 150,000 years ago and survived the Eemian warm period even though there was seldom any polar ice”.

    “The polar bears survived. Greenland didn’t melt.
    Source(s): Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Inst”, http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past

    180

  • #
    Neville

    Andrew Bolt nailed their SL BS and nonsense when he interviewed Hydrographic Surveyor Daniel Fitzhenry about SLs at Fort Denison since 1914.
    This interview only takes about 6 minutes but we can learn a lot about tide gauges and satellite data on our Aussie east coast.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mjOmsqIibk&t=1s

    171

    • #
      TdeF

      Thanks. Looking at the data I cannot see a trend. And there may not be one at all.

      As for the danger of sea level rises, the Thames in London has a daily range of 7 metres. I cannot imagine there is a practical problem on the Australian Eastern Seaboard now or in the next few centuries. It’s a big change from Robyn Willims ABC Science guy and his 100 metres by 2100 when interviewed by Andrew Bolt. 15 years later it should be up 15/91*100 or 13 metres. In fact there is a decrease.

      But characteristically, no one involved in the scare industry ever says sorry. And the ABC has not apologised for jailing the late Cardinal Pell without any evidence according to a unanimous decision of the High Court.

      101

      • #
        TdeF

        And I cannot imagine why a Tom Jones impersonator like Robyn Williams thinks he can proclaim on every subject just because of a degree in general physics. And the ridiculous Tim Flannery advised on both nuclear energy and hot rocks because he had a PhD in dead wombats. Meanwhile respected Geologist Ian Plimer is derided. It shows that to the promoters of this political science religion, facts are what you say they are. Which is the exact opposite of real science.

        131

  • #
    Neville

    Of course Ken Stewart’s article about “the world’s biggest thermometer” also includes many studies that proves the earlier Holocene was much hotter than today.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-worlds-biggest-thermometer/

    100

  • #
    David Maddison

    Remember people, we have a variable star at the centre of the solar system.

    80

  • #
    Neville

    BTW Willis Eschenbach has updated his “where’s the climate emergency” article this July ’24 and proves snow falls are normal.
    You can check just about every one of their climate tricks and he is still updating it for us.
    He leaves the famous HOT SPOT to Dr Christy and Dr Spencer and you can see their videos on youtube covering the H S topic.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/

    90

  • #
    Stanley

    The effect of volcanic / seismic activity should be considered. My knowledge of Taiwan’s geology is limited so I can’t be sure, however it is entirely possible that the apparent sea level back in the Holocene may be partially attributable to seismic shifts.
    In a similar way, the apparent sea level rise in parts of Fiji has more to do with tectonic activity than anthropogenic climate change.
    Please discuss.

    60

    • #
      melbourne+resident

      Sea level is a tricky thing – go to the UK – Scotland is rebounding after the depression caused by Ice Loading during the last Glaciation and southern England is sinking – so – sea level is both rising and falling in the same little island known as Britain. Sea Level measured by whatever method is always relative to the land so whilst sea level in Taiwan may have been 3metres higher than it is now – can anyone tell me what the level of the land was in Taiwan in the Eemian? (PS I am a geologist and glacio-eustatic sea level changes are apparent all round our coast line and that of southern Africa – where there was no Ice loading.)

      110

    • #
      el+gordo

      Not seismic shifts, but volcanic eruptions can raise sea level.

      Mt Takahe in Antartica is a case in point, it erupted around 17,746 BP and continued for 192 years, helping to bring the planet out of its icy grip.

      10

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Takahe are native birds to NZ, once thought to be extinct, then rediscovered in Fiordland and since re-bred into a viable population (Codfish Island?). Now there’s a volcano named in their honour? Kapai!

        30

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    Divining the weather 5,500 years in the past and 50 years in the future.
    Good gig.
    In both cases, the people that could prove you wrong are, or will be, dead.

    60

  • #
    Bruce

    Sea levels rising and falling, and not always in “sync” with guesstimated” temperatures?

    What has been comprehensively “black-holed” is the OBVIOUS geological story of rising and falling LAND levels. And these are usually coupled with LATERAL meanderings of entire continents

    There are places on the Great Barrier Reef where the coral footing is at least 60 feet below current mean sea level. I dived on an few in my younger days.

    The coral at these depths is decidedly dead; nowhere near enough sunlight penetration for it to survive, let alone flourish. The sea floor around the eastern Mediterranean is littered with submerged structures, some of which are clearly docks and other “waterfront” buildings.

    Did the tide come in, a LOT, or did the land “sink”? Or BOTH?

    30

  • #
    RoHa

    This is serious. If we keep making the world hotter, we run the risk of being eaten by giant oysters, just as Professor Tanaka warned us.

    We can only hope that he, his beautiful daughter Michiko (scientists always have beautiful daughters), and handsome Air Force officer Kenji Sato can find a way to save us from these beasts.

    80

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      So it’s not the aliens that are gonna get us after all – IT’S THE OYSTERS!

      Oh if we’d only listened to the Scandinavian child saint or Papa Gore…

      Isn’t Sweden rebounding up after the Big Melt?

      Isostatic rebound: ask a Greenie what it means 💨

      50

  • #
    another ian

    FWIW – “Biden’s List” Part 2

    “Now They’re Gaslighting Us About Biden’s ‘Accomplishments’ ”

    https://issuesinsights.com/2024/07/09/media-are-now-gaslighting-us-about-bidens-accomplishments/

    40

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    It’s no secret that sea levels were significantly higher seven thousand years ago at the start of the current interglacial.

    To get to where we are today we should look back 25,000 years to the glacial maximum when, for example, New York central park was under a massive ice field that was about 1,500 metres thick.

    With so much sea water tied up as ice the ocean levels were about 125 metres below where they are now and only a massive amount of heat could bring us to where we are now.

    Sea levels rose rapidly from the glacial max and overshot before settling in to current levels which are relatively stable.

    Some say that at the beginning of this interglacial sea levels were more than six metres above present.

    The fact that references and graphs that were once seen online a couple of years ago , but are no longer present is perhaps an indication of people trying to hide things from the public.

    70

    • #
      Bruce

      So, how do we get “rapid” and significant temperature rises? in those times?

      How about big objects falling from the sky at 50 thousand Km/Hr? That might do a bit of heat transfer. A bolide ther punches deep into the crust will also trigger a lot of “sympathetic” volcanic activity, around the globe.

      NOT from the planetary orbital plane, but on the polar axis.

      Also, consider the Carolina Bays

      A bunch of roughly elliptical “depressions” gouged out of the scenery in the Carolinas, USA. some are on land, some on the ocean floor Interestingly, they align back to several locations in Kanaduh.

      There is another bunch of =there weird depressions over near the Rockies..

      Oddly enough, there seems to be little sign of fragments of a likely chunk of rock to be seen.

      IF said object or cluster of high-velocity objects struck the Laurentide or similar ice sheet, kilometres-thick ice sheet, what might constitute the “secondary missiles>

      ICE. BIG chunks of ICE. REALLY BIG chunks of ice, traveling at high speed.

      40

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        There was a significant interruption to the big melt about twelve thousand years ago, and then it resumed.
        The cause of the halt seems to be widespread rocks from heaven.

        But,
        “ICE. BIG chunks of ICE. REALLY BIG chunks of ice, traveling at high speed.”

        What does that mean.
        Huh?

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          Meteors hitting ice and spraying massive ice fragments. It is hard to imagine the Laurentide ice sheet, 1km thick, over much of North America. That’s taller than the Burj Al Khalifa.

          The same with Antarctica as a continent of solid ice the size of South America and 10,000′ high on average. The mind boggles. And the idea that it is melting any time soon is ridiculous. The top is -50C and in total darkness for six months at 10,000′. How is it going to melt? We humans have no experience with such incredible massive frozen environments. +4C is not going to do it.

          30

          • #
            Broadie

            So TdeF. What happens when you keep adding weight ‘ice’ to one axis of a spinning top?

            Asked Brave’s browser:

            What happens when you keep adding weight to one axis of a spinning top?
            When you add weight to one axis of a spinning top, several phenomena occur:

            Increased Rotational Inertia: As you add weight, the moment of inertia (rotational inertia) around the axis of rotation increases. This means the top becomes more resistant to changes in its rotational motion.

            Shift in Center of Gravity: The added weight causes the center of gravity of the top to shift towards the axis of rotation. This can lead to changes in the top’s stability and behavior.

            Gyroscopic Effects: The spinning top’s gyroscopic properties become more pronounced as the weight increases. The gyroscopic effect counteracts the torque caused by gravity, making the top more resistant to falling over.

            Precession and Nutation: The added weight can cause the top to precess (slowly wobble) and nutate (tilt) around the axis of rotation. This is due to the interaction between the gyroscopic effect and the weight’s gravitational force.

            Increased Stability: As the weight increases, the top becomes more stable and resistant to external disturbances. This is because the increased rotational inertia and gyroscopic effect work together to maintain the top’s rotational motion.

            The answer appears to be that it can be more stable and/ or more wobbly. Maybe I should ask Milankovic.

            50

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            I thought that was what he meant, but it read as though he was talking about Iceteroids.

            “How about big objects falling from the sky at 50 thousand Km/Hr? ”

            Ice wouldn’t get through the atmosphere 🙂

            20

            • #
              TdeF

              Agreed. Ice melts to water at a tiny 0C. Like a bug on a windscreen.

              But “there seems to be little sign of fragments of a likely chunk of rock to be seen.” seems to confirm he is talking about meteors hitting walls of ice. It’s an interesting idea with no evidence except the furrows from what he proposed are flying pieces of ice. Which is why they are not found either.

              31

            • #
              Bruce

              What I was on about was the INITIAL bolide strike was a hyper-velocity piece of rock.

              This would strike the ice sheet at an angle, especially in a “polar’ approach.

              The “secondary missiles” generated by this strike would be of ice, blasted from the ice sheet and generally sent skywards and in a direction closely related to the trajectory of the initial strike. Hence a bunch of “sizeable” flying icebergs heading south at a “low inclination, hence the “elliptical” nature of the impact craters; the “Bays”.

              As for “Space-Ice” melting on the way in? It does not actually have to strike intact to leave a mark.

              The Tunguska event, early in the 20th Century, in Siberia, was not noticed because of a big crater, but by the BLAST effect on the forestry in the flight-path. The hyper-sonic pressure wave driven by the object created a lethal “over-pressure” front that killed anything it touched. Super-heating a big blob of ice and dust would have also led to a steam explosion of impressive magnitude. This is probably the explanation for the Woolly Mammoths violently killed and then frozen and buried, also in Siberia, in an earlier event. Virtually every carcass examined revealed a LOT of broken bones, even the huge leg bones. They died pretty much instantly, often with mouths full of food. Any that were close to “ground zero” would have simply been turned into “pink mist”.

              The bodies were not nibbled on by scavenging critters because all of those were killed or “disabled” by the same blast wave. Soon after the “event” the millions of tons of dust blasted into the air started falling. The upper layers of dust wold have increased the albedo of the planet, especially in the northern hemisphere and it became very cold, very quickly. Hence, snap-frozen Mammoths.

              Over-pressure impulses kill by rattling vital internal soft tissue; brain, liver, lungs, etc, to almost pulp as the shock-wave travels through at insane speed.

              Not everything in Nature is sweetness and light, rainbows and unicorns.

              00

      • #
  • #
    John

    Isn’t it strange that the MSM never cover stories like this? The legacy media is quite good at ignoring/denying what the average Jo Blow can see with his own eyes, as we are discovering of late.

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      They can’t even see that Joe Biden is senile. The Biden team gambled that Trump would not come to completely rigged debate on CNN with three of his sworn enemies, two of them working for CNN. I can imagine friends told Trump the whole thing was a trap. And he said “I know”. Biden collapsed in the first thirty seconds despite 12 days of intensive coaching, drugs, practice. The gamble was that Trump would refuse a debate. They lost.

      71

    • #
      Ross

      Jo has a great gift. She can wordsmith an absolutely boring scientific discovery or paper to be palatable plus entertaining.

      80

  • #
  • #
    Billy Bob Hall

    The central northern portion of the Central Range in Taiwan experiences an uplift rate of approximately 22.9 mm/year. The southern part of the Coastal Range shows rates ranging from 1.3 to 25.8 mm/year, the highest in Taiwan. Is there more than ‘sea-level change’ going on here ?

    40

  • #
    TdeF

    Another unmentioned phenomenon is sand. Beijing gets up to 1cm of sand a year from the Gobi desert. Visitors see this as pollution. It’s just huge amounts of dirt in the air. Rome has the same thing, 1cm a year. So many of the buildings and streets of Rome are 10-20metres under the current ground level. If you get permission from the Vatican, you can go down and under the crypt and walk and old street in Rome. Similarly builders about three years ago broke through the roof of Nero’s Golden house and it was there, intact. While he was supposed to have burned Rome to the ground, he built a huge palace on the remains and the palace was buried and lost. There are teams of speleologists who explore these old underground houses and streets.

    Plus the port of Ostia, buried for a thousand years was excavated by Mussolini and potentially more significant than Pompeii, but few know about it. The silting of the harbour means it is now far inland. It is why Catholics eat fish on Friday as the Pope’s failed attempt to help the Ostia fishing port survive.

    Other ports like Ephesus are now well inland, although it was a channel which silted up, as with the preserved Medieval city of Bruges. So while mountains are slowly leveled by erosian, coastal areas keep rising.

    And whatever you say about sea level rises, land rising is as much a worry for cities based on ports, which is most cities. Stockholm had to be moved 1,000 years ago as it was out of the water.

    The theory of Climate Change is that if you pay enough money, nothing changes.

    51

  • #
  • #
    geo.

    Just curious about sea shells found on Mt Everest. <:o)

    10

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>