Randal Carlson shares similar flood info. If icesheets were as high as 2 miles, THATS alotta water/pressure at any time of release. So easy to follow "flood" story over time & around world.
Love the hydraulic model and relating it to evidence. 1… what difference does it make to model the topography with 100 meter DEM, versus 30 or 10? 2… for the 2D model map squares, what would higher resolution map squares provide? 3… 13,400 years ago, the topography was still unspringing from the weight loss from Glaciers shrinking. This would change the elevation including a tilt down lower on the glacier side than the south side. This in turn would change the relative heights of overtop passes and slope of rivers. It would be very relevant to include this correction to elevations.
Was your model able to model the sloshing that appears to have produce the rhythmites in various locations? This would produce the inflow/ outflow patterns that appear in the rhythmites.
I think we still missing part of this puzzle. 600 meters of water is gona put a lot of pressure on the stream that usually is at the base of a glacier. Also there is evidence that this occurred as many as 80 times so the dam reformed 80 times? Glaciers travel slowly so reforming that many times l think is a stretch. We still have some explaining to do but atleast we have accepted it did happen. Reminds me of when every anthropologist had a theory on the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs then along came a geologist. Edit: before someone say how long the ice age had to reform dams ill remind them how quickly we think they may have melted basically a few hundred years possibly less.
I have a problem with a glacier flowing from the Kootenai Valley which is the southern end of the Purcell trench. The mountains of the Cabinets and the Selkirks only leave a gap of 5 miles at the 3100 foot level. I would think any glacier moving thru that gap would be shattered up much like you see in modern photos of glaciers. Another problem would be the fact that the elevation at Bonners Ferry is some 300 feet lower than the elevation just north of Lake Pend d Oreille which is over 2100 feet while Bonners is 1760 or so. I would think this would hamper the "sliding" of the glacier out of the Purcell trench somewhat. Also as you go north into British Columbia the valley floor gets lower still with low water levels at Kootenay Lake being 1738 feet and the lake being as deep as 400 feet. Seems like a glacier would have more or less been trapped by the lower ground it was sitting on.
He’s not a geologist, and does make small descriptive mistakes. The Purcell Ice passage wasn’t just a glacier, but a major Cordilleran Ice Sheet lobe much more in volume than a glacier, thus over-riding the obstructions.
No, 550 miles SW of Missoula is the North Willamette Valley where it became a lake; at this location, it was 250’ deep x 30+ miles wide. There is a 92 ton boulder of argillite there, rafted on a berg from Montana; accounting for abrasion, melt and partial breakup, the berg must’ve been enormous that dropped other large boulders on the way.
It was a rather unique sitiuation. When I first heard ice dam I thought it was crossing the outflow at 90 degree angle instead there was a wide tounge comming down from Canada and it jamed into North end of the bitterroots mountians at the north end of pend oriel the west part of that tounge south west was about half as wide. But the strong difference is the east part of the tounge was driven 10 miles or more UP the clarksfork even gaining 100 foot elevation. The thickness of ice over Sandpoint was about 3500 feet thick as long as the ice going up the clarksfork was thicker than 2400 feet thickvthenbit could hold water back that was 2100 foot deep with out floating the ice
@@jeffbybee5207 .. The lake was there. Evidence show that, but if I was asked about it without that supporting evidence, I would not believe it to be true. One other remark I will make is as the ice (as you point out) if pressed upward and gained altitude, would it not experience increased bending force, thus increased cracking in the bottom would occur? If you look at how dams are constructed, they are meticulous in cleaning the bedrock for debris, cracked bedrock and any FOD that can weaken the foundation of the dam by providing a flow path for water to undermine the dam. Ice, full of cracks & debris and other FOD, on a raw surface is not an ideal dam structure at all. That is why we see the floods in Iceland occur quite quickly when a volcano erupts under the glacier. To me, the ice dam makes no sense. But, the lake was there for sure. Maybe we are missing something.
Take a look at Wallowa Lake, it’s a glacial lake that is minuscule compared to the parental Pleistocene Hurwall glacier. The present lake is over 300’ deep, but the lateral moraine is another 750’ above it. Considering that the Hurwall glacier must’ve been minuscule compared to the Purcell Lobe, the Purcell moraine must’ve been 2,000’ high, which would’ve relieved mist of the pressure below the ice dam.
@@bradthompson5383 It absolutely lines up date wise. And explain how your "many smaller floods" took out the megafauna all over the world. Multiple impacts can explain that; your's can't.
@@bradthompson5383 If you recall the Shoemaker-Levy 9 Jupiter collision, it did indeed breakup into multiple fragments. They all impacted in a linear fashion on a relatively small (I mean its Jupiter) part of the planet.
@@bradthompson5383 We seem to be talking about different things. I have never heard anyone say that all 40 or whatever were impacts. I thought you were saying that multiple impacts around the same time were impossible. Without more information, I would tend to agree that if impacts caused all of these over 5 thousand years, there would be some evidence in space for that supply of material. Then again I don't know that kind of stuff. Maybe there was a comet that was disintegrating over that time period and now it is completely gone or the latest one at 13k was the grand finale but we will never find it because of the ice vaporizing it. I hope they continue to study everything including the crater in Greenland to get more answers. I have also heard that those layers might not all be separated so much in time. One theory is that as the water slowed from narrow places becoming obstructed with ice and debris, it would settle out that silt only to fill up whatever basin until the pressure forced the debris through. I don't understand how these layers can be so perfect and undisturbed from the previous flood when hard rock was annihilated upstream and downstream. It seems to me that the layers would have been disturbed each time. Why do the layers get progressively smaller? It seems like it is losing energy each time. Surely if it was random there would not be such a pattern. No?
Randal Carlson shares similar flood info. If icesheets were as high as 2 miles, THATS alotta water/pressure at any time of release.
So easy to follow "flood" story over time & around world.
Thanks for sharing!
Love the hydraulic model and relating it to evidence.
1… what difference does it make to model the topography with 100 meter DEM, versus 30 or 10?
2… for the 2D model map squares, what would higher resolution map squares provide?
3… 13,400 years ago, the topography was still unspringing from the weight loss from Glaciers shrinking. This would change the elevation including a tilt down lower on the glacier side than the south side. This in turn would change the relative heights of overtop passes and slope of rivers. It would be very relevant to include this correction to elevations.
Hi, how to modify the terrain itself to represent it as a lake under 2D flow area unit given the lake area and lake volume only?
Was your model able to model the sloshing that appears to have produce the rhythmites in various locations? This would produce the inflow/ outflow patterns that appear in the rhythmites.
I think we still missing part of this puzzle. 600 meters of water is gona put a lot of pressure on the stream that usually is at the base of a glacier. Also there is evidence that this occurred as many as 80 times so the dam reformed 80 times? Glaciers travel slowly so reforming that many times l think is a stretch. We still have some explaining to do but atleast we have accepted it did happen. Reminds me of when every anthropologist had a theory on the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs then along came a geologist.
Edit: before someone say how long the ice age had to reform dams ill remind them how quickly we think they may have melted basically a few hundred years possibly less.
I have a problem with a glacier flowing from the Kootenai Valley which is the southern end of the Purcell trench. The mountains of the Cabinets and the Selkirks only leave a gap of 5 miles at the 3100 foot level. I would think any glacier moving thru that gap would be shattered up much like you see in modern photos of glaciers. Another problem would be the fact that the elevation at Bonners Ferry is some 300 feet lower than the elevation just north of Lake Pend d Oreille which is over 2100 feet while Bonners is 1760 or so. I would think this would hamper the "sliding" of the glacier out of the Purcell trench somewhat. Also as you go north into British Columbia the valley floor gets lower still with low water levels at Kootenay Lake being 1738 feet and the lake being as deep as 400 feet. Seems like a glacier would have more or less been trapped by the lower ground it was sitting on.
He’s not a geologist, and does make small descriptive mistakes. The Purcell Ice passage wasn’t just a glacier, but a major Cordilleran Ice Sheet lobe much more in volume than a glacier, thus over-riding the obstructions.
I suppose including cruise ship sized ice bergs that can carry those erratic boulders is too complex?
No, 550 miles SW of Missoula is the North Willamette Valley where it became a lake; at this location, it was 250’ deep x 30+ miles wide. There is a 92 ton boulder of argillite there, rafted on a berg from Montana; accounting for abrasion, melt and partial breakup, the berg must’ve been enormous that dropped other large boulders on the way.
How can an ICE dam sustain the hydrolic pressure from a water column of 700M?
It was a rather unique sitiuation. When I first heard ice dam I thought it was crossing the outflow at 90 degree angle instead there was a wide tounge comming down from Canada and it jamed into North end of the bitterroots mountians at the north end of pend oriel the west part of that tounge south west was about half as wide. But the strong difference is the east part of the tounge was driven 10 miles or more UP the clarksfork even gaining 100 foot elevation. The thickness of ice over Sandpoint was about 3500 feet thick as long as the ice going up the clarksfork was thicker than 2400 feet thickvthenbit could hold water back that was 2100 foot deep with out floating the ice
@@jeffbybee5207 .. The lake was there. Evidence show that, but if I was asked about it without that supporting evidence, I would not believe it to be true. One other remark I will make is as the ice (as you point out) if pressed upward and gained altitude, would it not experience increased bending force, thus increased cracking in the bottom would occur? If you look at how dams are constructed, they are meticulous in cleaning the bedrock for debris, cracked bedrock and any FOD that can weaken the foundation of the dam by providing a flow path for water to undermine the dam. Ice, full of cracks & debris and other FOD, on a raw surface is not an ideal dam structure at all. That is why we see the floods in Iceland occur quite quickly when a volcano erupts under the glacier. To me, the ice dam makes no sense. But, the lake was there for sure. Maybe we are missing something.
Take a look at Wallowa Lake, it’s a glacial lake that is minuscule compared to the parental Pleistocene Hurwall glacier. The present lake is over 300’ deep, but the lateral moraine is another 750’ above it. Considering that the Hurwall glacier must’ve been minuscule compared to the Purcell Lobe, the Purcell moraine must’ve been 2,000’ high, which would’ve relieved mist of the pressure below the ice dam.
@@johnnash5118 .. Are you suggesting that the ice dam could have been 'reinforced' with a moraine in front of it?
Where's Randal hiding?
Younger Dryas Impacts explain all this more simply and cover other events at this time that your hypothesis can't explain, but need to.
@@bradthompson5383 Bull. This ice dam hypothesis is crap. And you guys want to repeat over and over again. Didn't happen.
@@bradthompson5383 It absolutely lines up date wise. And explain how your "many smaller floods" took out the megafauna all over the world. Multiple impacts can explain that; your's can't.
@@bradthompson5383 get your facts straight... That's why your geologist are losing this battle...
@@bradthompson5383 If you recall the Shoemaker-Levy 9 Jupiter collision, it did indeed breakup into multiple fragments. They all impacted in a linear fashion on a relatively small (I mean its Jupiter) part of the planet.
@@bradthompson5383 We seem to be talking about different things. I have never heard anyone say that all 40 or whatever were impacts. I thought you were saying that multiple impacts around the same time were impossible. Without more information, I would tend to agree that if impacts caused all of these over 5 thousand years, there would be some evidence in space for that supply of material.
Then again I don't know that kind of stuff. Maybe there was a comet that was disintegrating over that time period and now it is completely gone or the latest one at 13k was the grand finale but we will never find it because of the ice vaporizing it. I hope they continue to study everything including the crater in Greenland to get more answers.
I have also heard that those layers might not all be separated so much in time. One theory is that as the water slowed from narrow places becoming obstructed with ice and debris, it would settle out that silt only to fill up whatever basin until the pressure forced the debris through.
I don't understand how these layers can be so perfect and undisturbed from the previous flood when hard rock was annihilated upstream and downstream. It seems to me that the layers would have been disturbed each time.
Why do the layers get progressively smaller? It seems like it is losing energy each time. Surely if it was random there would not be such a pattern. No?