A candidate theory for a global(ish) flood ...

[oxmixmudd]

Hi all,

I would like to put up for serious discussion an interesting write up I found on the web today that proposes a large cometary impact into the existing glacial ice sheet at about the end of the most recent ice age. This event precipitated the rise in temperature that ended that ice age, and created a series of floods across the earth that would have been a local/global event of the kind I personally think might be what is talked about in the story of Noah's flood.

He proposes that the impact into the 2 mile thick ice sheets would have dissapated a lot of its energy into the ice, melting it and creating a huge shower of ice and water and dust that would have essentially flooded all coastal regions and more. I think he is also proposing that the overall relief of the world during the ice age (due to the weight of the ice sheets) was flatter than today - allowing for a more 'global' nature to the resultant flooding.

I will link the information here

There is too much to go into great detail in this opening post, But first:

I am seeking information on what is/is not known about the events he uses as evidence for his theory

Information on the plausibility of his theory.

I am not trying to say this is/is not the global flood of Noah. Just exploring it as it is intriguing

But I would like the readers here to offer serious feedback on this person's hypothesis, not just dismiss it. Especially geologists that might know if the timing of the various components of his scenario line up. I'll be looking into it on my own as well.


To me - this kind of scenario makes more sense than a local flood like the black sea infilling as a source for the flood story - if it can be established w/o waving ones hand at clear and major contraindications. And it doesn't necessarily involve the kind of global flooding generally imagined - and generally refuted - for Noah's flood. But it could well have done the job in terms of 'wiping out all mankind' except Noah.(I'm not going to get too literal on that issue). It would have reached the entire 'inhabited' globe in scope - most of man would be living in coastal areas and have limited extent due to the ice age itself - and would have appeared to those affected by it as the Bible describes.


Now I shall go duck in case any flaming arrows come my way ...


Jim

[rogue06]

Interesting possibility. There are three things I thought of. Does he have an impact sight in mind? The end of the Cretaceous has Chicxulub. This one would be much more recent of course. Second, I thought large impacts were usually related with a definite period of cooling due to sunlight being blocked by dust and debris rather than a period of warming. Third, has he looked at the ice and sea floor cores to see if they show signs of registering such an impact at the end of the Ice Age?

[technomage]

I cannot specifically comment on the science (though Rogue brings up some very good points), however, it looks very much like the author is trying to wrest a theory from nowhere. His only proffered evidence is textual accounts, and he horribly distorts the Platonic accounts to match his analysis.

Jim, I hate to say it, but it sounds pretty bogus so far. If he can come up with a possible impact site, then maybe we can get some actual science out of it. As it is, it's so much moonbeams.

[oxmixmudd]

Interesting possibility. There are three things I thought of. Does he have an impact sight in mind? The end of the Cretaceous has Chicxulub. This one would be much more recent of course. Second, I thought large impacts were usually related with a definite period of cooling due to sunlight being blocked by dust and debris rather than a period of warming. Third, has he looked at the ice and sea floor cores to see if they show signs of registering such an impact at the end of the Ice Age?

I am thinking he might be thinking the impact would be mostly absorbed by the ice - though he refers to the carolina bays as possible secondary impacts associated with the event. Although it appears the age for these might be a little to old for his hypothesis (27,000 years as opposed to 11,000 years).

As for cooling vs. warming - in an event like this there is generally a period of months or years where the nuclear winter plays out, but it is followed generally by a much longer period of warming due to the increased co2 that tends to be precipitated by the secondary effects of the impact (volcanic activity etc). At least, that is the general consensus from what I have read on the subject.

My main doubts at this time are relative to the ability of an impact of this size to have so recent an origin and so little direct impact evidence. And I do not know if the Glaciers themselves could have shielded the underlying rock from the heat of the explosion. It is an interesting idea though - if the incoming comet was of a kind that would tend to vaporize (explode) over the ice, not necessarily make direct contact, and the ice could absorb the thermal energy and shock waves, it might not leave a large impact crator in the crust itself, and the crater in the ice would just melt away with the retreat of the ice sheets.

The last one is an 'I don't know'. Obviously, the paper I linked contains only sparse supporting evidence, hence the reason I've put the idea up here for comment to see if what little he references is clearly wrong, or if there is at least the possibility he could be on to something.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I cannot specifically comment on the science (though Rogue brings up some very good points), however, it looks very much like the author is trying to wrest a theory from nowhere. His only proffered evidence is textual accounts, and he horribly distorts the Platonic accounts to match his analysis.

Jim, I hate to say it, but it sounds pretty bogus so far. If he can come up with a possible impact site, then maybe we can get some actual science out of it. As it is, it's so much moonbeams.

Thanks for the input.

Most of these kinds of things are(moonbeams). I probably am interested mainly because I've got in the back of my mind that somewhere along the way what we will find is an minor impact event or other catastrophe that produced a truly catastrophic flood in and around the Mediterainian that will line up with the flood story and reasonably close in timeframe. The only real problem with the black sea in that regard is that it was only catestrophic for those near the inflow point.

This one fits the mold of my hoped for event, but on an even larger scale - giving an even better fit to the text - so I'm interested in seeing if there's anything there. And there are a lot of resources here that can smell a fish a mile away - so here we are


Jim

[SteveF]

Load of crap. I've looked at loads of sequences from the late glacial. No signs of flood whatsoever. Moreover, we have ice cores going through the period in which they were apparently destroyed.

[Tiggy]

There was a National Geographic special on this exact topic shown last night. It is theorized that a major contributor to the extinction of the N. Americal megafauna around 12,900 years ago was a comet impacting in the glacial ice sheets in what is now northeast Canada.

Comet Wiped Out Early North American Culture, Animals, Study Says

There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest such an event did affect the extinction, but no one 'smoking gun' found yet.

Very interesting topic!

- T

[technomage]

I probably am interested mainly because I've got in the back of my mind that somewhere along the way what we will find is an minor impact event or other catastrophe that produced a truly catastrophic flood in and around the Mediterainian that will line up with the flood story and reasonably close in timeframe. The only real problem with the black sea in that regard is that it was only catestrophic for those near the inflow point.

Hmmm ... in the interest of full disclosure, I'm very possibly too biased to form a substantive opinion of such. I take the Flood narratives as mythic--not just Noah, but also Utnapishtam, Ziusudra, Atrahasis, the whole lot. Seeing as they are mythic (at least in my assumptions), chasing after evidence of their occurence is, to my mind, like chasing after the archaeology of Barsoom.

[oxmixmudd]

Hmmm ... in the interest of full disclosure, I'm very possibly too biased to form a substantive opinion of such. I take the Flood narratives as mythic--not just Noah, but also Utnapishtam, Ziusudra, Atrahasis, the whole lot. Seeing as they are mythic (at least in my assumptions), chasing after evidence of their occurence is, to my mind, like chasing after the archaeology of Barsoom.

Sure - no problem. I tend to think there is more to it than that - that these stories all have an origin in a real event. But if the evidence can convince both skeptic and believer - then we have something - eh?


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

There was a National Geographic special on this exact topic shown last night. It is theorized that a major contributor to the extinction of the N. Americal megafauna around 12,900 years ago was a comet impacting in the glacial ice sheets in what is now northeast Canada.

Comet Wiped Out Early North American Culture, Animals, Study Says

There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest such an event did affect the extinction, but no one 'smoking gun' found yet.

Very interesting topic!

- T

Load of crap. I've looked at loads of sequences from the late glacial. No signs of flood whatsoever. Moreover, we have ice cores going through the period in which they were apparently destroyed.

Now this is great! So clearly we have some conflict here between folks with more or less the same view of the flood story. Steve - you've worked in this field quite a bit. (I don't know if you have Tiggy - so no insult there) - what do you think of the NG information? Does it shed any new light that would change your rather concise summary What would you be expecting to see in the ice core data if an event like this had occurred? (I am writing this BEFORE I look at Tiggy's link myself - which is the next thing I will do)


Jim

[NeilUnreal]

I am familiar with the Carolina Bay publication he cites. I've been interested in Carolina bays for a long time; when I was in graduate school, I even helped core sample one or two of them. The Carolina Bay publication is well-done and a valid piece of research, but I have to say I'm skeptical; the evidence for Carolina Bay formation via long-term aeolian and fluvial processes is just too good.

When you look at Carolina Bays on an air or satellite photo, your first thought is "Wow! That's got to be an impact of some kind!" When you look at a few Bays in detail, however, your first thought is "Prevailing wind makes ordinary pond succession on the U.S. east coast surprisingly regular in morphology."

-Neil

[technomage]

Cool. I mainly posted that so that if I get too radical in my statements against such a theory people will have a grain of salt to take with my statements.

What would you be expecting to see in the ice core data if an event like this had occurred?

I'm not Steve, of course, but I would expect to see either:
* a substantial flood layer reflected in the ice cores (a considerably thicker layer, perhaps with a statistically significant amount of nickel and iridium in said layer), OR;
* A notable discontinuity in the ice cores (caused by the impact and resulting flooding melting one or several layers).

The Tunguska event is estimated to be in the range of 4 to 8 x 10¹⁶ joules (equivalent to 10-20 megatons of TNT), and scorched trees to a maximum radius of about 50 km. Assuming that an "atmospheric impact" over an ice sheet had occurred, someone with better knowledge of physics and material engineering might be able to calculate the necessary size of such an event. It is my contention that such an event could not have occurred without leaving widespread evidence in one form or another.

[technomage]

Additional point to consider.

it is my understanding (perhaps mistaken) that ice is a good reflector of radiant heat, and thus does not heat quickly in such conditions. The biggest source of heat for an atmospheric impact would seem to be the actual explosion itself, not the resultant atmospheric heating (which would dissipate relatively quickly). To my mind, this would mean that the impact would have to be incredibly huge to overcome this slow absorption, or would have to actually strike the ice (resulting in not just radiant heat, but in the impact).

However, I'm not a physicist, engineer, or the like. Is this plausible, or am I off my rocker?

[SteveF]

Now this is great! So clearly we have some conflict here between folks with more or less the same view of the flood story. Steve - you've worked in this field quite a bit. (I don't know if you have Tiggy - so no insult there) - what do you think of the NG information? Does it shed any new light that would change your rather concise summary What would you be expecting to see in the ice core data if an event like this had occurred? (I am writing this BEFORE I look at Tiggy's link myself - which is the next thing I will do)

There's not any conflict, because the two events are different. The recent article in PNAS concerns an impact which has hypothesized climate events. The consequences for this are some evidence for impact in the region (carbon spherules etc) and the aforementioned hypothesis (there should also be evidence within ice cores, representing the wider picture; they mention some circumstantial stuff).

Conversely, we have a guy who appears to be arguing that ice caps were destroyed (destroying any record of the late glacial) and that a flood then covered much of the world. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. It's flat out wrong.

[Tiggy]

There's not any conflict, because the two events are different. The recent article in PNAS concerns an impact which has hypothesized climate events. The consequences for this are some evidence for impact in the region (carbon spherules etc) and the aforementioned hypothesis (there should also be evidence within ice cores, representing the wider picture; they mention some circumstantial stuff).

Conversely, we have a guy who appears to be arguing that ice caps were destroyed (destroying any record of the late glacial) and that a flood then covered much of the world. There is no evidence whatsoever for this. It's flat out wrong.

I'll agree with what SteveF is saying. The NG documentary addressed only the N. American event, and said nothing about ice sheets melting or causing flood(s). Looks like that nad the OP are two different hypotheses altogether.

Sorry if I unintentionally muddied the waters.

- T