ps418

William Anderson has a book entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/140102095X/qid=1014340501/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_5_1/103-6501757-9915064" target="_blank">Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood</a>, which is available at Amazon. Anderson, who by the way is not an advocate of either young-earthism or traditional flood geology, describes his book in the following hyperbolic terms:

"This is a very unique book, that for the first time puts forth a new theory on how a recent global flood as described in the Bible may have occurred, that is both plausible and scientifically sound. The author treats Noah's flood as a scientific mystery story which he then proceeds to solve by examining the clues found in the geological record and human history, building a theory that is in harmony with the biblical record of an earth wide deluge and with what we know about the geology of the earth"

"This book is compelling as the author proves what many have come to view as mere myth, is actually a historical event well supported by scientific evidence. The author also presents the results of his research on detecting recently deposited micro marine fossils left by the flood in soil samples. Presenting solid Paleoclimatological evidence of the deluge, this book may require rewriting many currently used textbooks."

"This book really does solve the mystery of the flood. It is basically a geology book that proves the earth has had a recent earth wide flood as described in the Bible. This book has all the answers, it explains in detail exactly how the flood happened. There have been many Scientific Creationist books over the years that have tried to prove the flood, but they have all failed because they ignore basic scientific facts and twist everything in a vain attempt to support their impossible theories and end up only deluding themselves. "

"The evidence presented is so solid and the chain of events so logical, that when reading this chapter you feel like you are watching the flood as it happened."

"After reading this book you will probably want to take Morris's book the "Genesis Flood" and throw it into the trash can. (if you haven't already) This book completely destroys creationism's flood theories by replacing them with one that actually works and can be verified scientifically. This book will very possibly mark a major turning point in how we look at Noah's flood. Proving the biblical flood could be the biggest change in the world of science since Einstein. The waves this book will make in the scientific world and the creationist world will be fun to watch."

Although I have not read the book, I have engaged in a fairly lengthy discussion with the author of the book, and he has kindly explained the details of his theory to me. Based on this discussion, I can say that the mechanism he proposes for producing the flood is fatally flawed, and that, contrary to Anderson's somewhat hyperbolic claims, the theory is in fact grossly incompatible with the glaciological, eustatic and isotopic data.

In a nutshell, the mechanism is supposed to work like this: at the end of the last ice age, 'something happened' which caused all or most of the continental ice to be rapidly displaced into the oceans. This ice displaced so much water in the ocean basins that the ocean water flooded onto the isostatically-depressed continents. Later, the continents rebound and the ocean floor sank, causing the regression. The author is vague on how this event was triggered. He stated that a comet impact might have triggered it, but basically admitted when pressed for details that there is no evidence for such an impact. Later he suggested that some deep earth movements might have caused it, but did not elaborate pr present any evidence indicating that such a thing has occurred. He may give more details in the book, I'm not sure.

The first fatal flaw in the mechanism is that it requires a much larger continental ice volume at the last glacial maximum (LGM) than actually existed. The author originally was assuming that something like 500x10^6 km3 worth of ice was displaced from the continents to the oceans as part of the flood. When presented with evidence for LGM ice volume, he later conceded that the ice volume might have been much lower, but never quite explained how a global flood could be produced with any realistic ice volume.

However, several independent lines of evidence constrain the LGM ice volume to about 50x10^6 km3 in excess of that which exists today (about 25x10^6 km3). In other words, only about 50x10^6 km3 worth of ice has melted in the entire time since the LGM.

There are several ways to estimate the volume of continental ice that existed during the LGM.

1. The first way to estimate the LGM ice volume is from isostatic data -- the observed rebound is a function of the weight of the former ice sheets. Compilation of isostatic estimates from formerly glaciated regions indicates that the LGM ice sheets added up to about ~40x10^6 km3 greater than today.

2. A second method to estimate LGM ice volume is from eustatic data. These indicate that the eustatic sea-level rise from LGM to today is about 130-140m, which again yields an LGM ice volume about 40-50 x10^6km3 greater than today (e.g. Bard et al., 1996; Fleming, 1998; Lambeck and Chappell, 2001; Peltier et al., 2002; Yokoyama et al., 2000). The Lambeck and Chappell paper is available online: <a href="http://allusions.wcp.muohio.edu/SeaLevel/sealevelandglaciers.pdf" target="_blank">Sea level change through the last glacial cycle</a> See figure 3b, which presents eustatic sea level data from Barbados, Tahiti, Huon Peninsula, the Sunda Shelf, Bonaparte Gulf, and other sites.

3. A third method of estimating the LGM ice volume relies on oxygen isotope ratios. One advantage of this method is that it is totally unaffected by isostatic rebound or other uncertainties. The logic is as follows: there are two main oxygen isotopes in water, 18O and 16O (17O also exists, but only in insignificant amounts). Water molecules containing the the light oxygen isotope (16O) are preferentially evaporated from the ocean. As more and more water evaporates from the ocean and accumulates on land as ice, the oceans because more and more enriched in the heavier oxygen isotope (18O). Thus, during a glaciation, the the ratio 180/16O [hereafter delta 18O] increases, and when the ice melts and returns to the oceans during deglaciation, the delta18O in seawater decreases.

The amplitude of the change in delta 18O of seawater is directly related to the volume of water that has been removed from the oceans as ice. Calculations show that the removal of 45x10^6km3 of water with an average oxygen isotopic composition of -30, will cause the delta 18O of seawater to increase by about 1 per mil. Calculations of this type are presented by Emiliani 1955, Daansgaard and Tauber 1969, and Mix 1987.

The record of the oxygen isotope composition of former oceans is preserved by the calcite of organisms that lived and grew within it. The most widely used organisms in isotopic analyses are the forams, both benthic and planktonic. As forams live and die and sink the ocean flood, they preserve a vertical record of the isotopic composition of seawater over time. The record of the last several glacial cycles are especially well-documented, from numerous deep-sea cores all over earth.

[The delta 18O in forams is a function both of the 18O/16O of ambient seawater, AND the temperature at which calcification occurs. In order to derive a record of the seawater delta O18, the temperature at which calcification occurred must be determined. The temperature of calcification can be determined independently by Mg/Ca ratios, and thus the seawater 'component' of the isotopic fluctuation can be estimated. Porewater analyses, however, are not affected by similar uncertainties.]

The actual oxygen isotopic change of seawater from LGM to today is estimated from many foraminiferal studies to be about 1 per mil (e.g. Duplessey et al., 2002; Lea et al., 2002).

4. Another method that has been used to estimate the change in seawater 18O/16O since the LGM is by analyses of pore fluid trapped in sediment cores. Duplessy et al. (2002) explain:

"At the sediment water interface, there is exchange of both water molecules and dissolved compounds with the overlying ocean bottom water . . . changes in the 18O of seawater propoagate downward into the sediment, leaving a profile of d18O vs depth in the pore fluid that is a record of the d18O history of seawater" (p. 318).

This method has also yielded estimates of ~1 per mil change in seawater oxygen isotope ratios since the LGM (Schrag et al., 1996).

5. Yet another geochemical constraint on the LGM ice volume is provided by paleosalinity measurements of pore-fluid samples from ocean cores. As the ocean is 'drawn down' by evaporation and ice storage, the salinity of the ocean increases linearly. In general, the removal of 1% of the ocean by evaporation and storage as ice will result in an increase in salinity of 1%. If we could know how saline the ocean was during LGM time, we could know how much ice was being stored on the continents. Adkins and Schrag (2001) estimate a salinity decrease of ~2.5% from the LGM to today based on pore-fluid evidence from the Bermuda Rise core 1063A. This is close to, but a bit less than, the expected LGM to holocene salinity increase of 3.16%. It is quite possible, however, that the lower than expected LGM salinity is a result of local hydrological factors, and does not represent the global mean.

So, there we have 4 methods for constraining the LGM ice volume: isostatic modelling, eustatic sea-level data, oxygen-isotope data, and paleosalinity data, all of which indicate that the LGM ice volume was about 40-55x10^6 km3 in excess of the current ice volume.

Another observation indicating that sea-level could not have been substantially lower than 130m is that, if it were, all of the continental shelves would have been subaerially exposed at the LGM, which is not the case (e.g. Ferland et al., 1995; Ramsey et al., 2002).

The Timing and Tempo of the Last Deglaciation

The second fatal flaw with Anderson's theory is that it requires that all or most of the LGM excess ice to be displaced into the oceans within a single year. This is totally inconsistent with both the eustatic sea level data and high-resolution oxygen-isotope records spanning the period from the LGM to today. Isotopic and eustatic records can tell us not only how much ice existed during the LGM, but also the tempo and rate at which this ice returned to the oceans as meltwater. As the evidence discussed below shows, the transfer of this ice from the continents back to the oceans occurred slowly and gradually, not 'all at once.'


One way to deduce the tempo and rate at which the ice was returned to the oceans is from changes in the oxygen isotope ratios of seawater, which has been shown to be an excellent proxy for ice volume/sea level. The best argument that delta 18O (seawater) is a reliable proxy for sea level is the fact that the eustatic sea-level curve and the seawater oxygen isotope curve agree quite closely, as far back as eustatic data goes. For instance, Lea et al. (2002) derive a 350k yr seawater oxygen isotope curve, and compare it with the the eustatic curve, and the match is extremely good (see their figure 7).

Abstract:

The record of oxygen isotopic variations in foraminifer shells from deep-sea cores preserves a continuous record of ice volume and sea level oscillations. To extract the ice volume record, however, it is necessary to remove the temperature and local hydrological influence on 18O. We employ the strategy of estimating calcification temperatures from Mg/Ca and removing this signal from an observed 18O record of planktonic foraminifera from a core on the Cocos Ridge, eastern equatorial Pacific. The residual, 18Owater, reveals a pattern of changes that appears to be consistent with known ice volume and sea level variations. Over the last four glacial terminations, 18 Owater decreases by 1.2±0.1. The magnitude of high stands appears to be consistent with modern sea level during MIS 5.5 (5e), 7.1 and 7.5 but somewhat lower during MIS 9.1.

As another example, a paper by Miller et al. (1996) showed that sea-level lowstands in the Oligocene-Miocene sea inferred on the basis of oxygen isotope excursions matched the distribution of seismic unconformities in the shelf sediments off of New Jersey. In other words, where the isotopes tell us we should find lowstand unconformities, we actually do find lowstand unconformities. Their abstract states:

Oligocene to middle Miocene sequence boundaries on the New Jersey coastal plain (Ocean Drilling Project Leg 150X) and continental slope (Ocean Drilling Project Leg 150) were dated by integrating strontium isotopic stratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, and biostratigraphy (planktonic foraminifera, nannofossils, dinocysts, and diatoms). The ages of coastal plain unconformities and slope seismic reflectors (unconformities or stratal breaks with no discernible hiatuses) match the ages of global 18O increases (inferred glacioeustatic lowerings) measured in deep-sea sites. These correlations confirm a causal link between coastal plain and slope sequence boundaries: both formed during global sea-level lowerings. The ages of New Jersey sequence boundaries and global 18O increases also correlate well with the Exxon Production Research sea-level records of Haq et al. and Vail et al., validating and refining their compilations.

If all or most of the LGM ice was returned to oceans catastrophically, we would expect a giant negative excursion occurring right at the flood, as millions of km3 of isotopically light meltwater enter the ocean basins. Contrary to this expectation, the return to interglacial oxygen isotope values is spread out over about ~9k years, with only small meltwater spikes. Moreover, the curve for the last deglaciation is the same as the same for the past several glacial-deglacial cycle.


Anderson's scenario is also totally inconsistent with the eustatic sea level data. If all the ice was returned to the oceans during a single year, displacing enough water to flood the continents, then what relative sea-level change would you expect to see after the flood? In low and mid latitudes where isostatic effects are minimal, you'd expect to see a record of relative sea-level fall following the flood, as the ocean floor sinks under the additional water weight (hydro-isostatic compensation). This is the opposite of what is actually found in the deglacial sea-level records from the Huon Peninsula, Barbados, Tahiti, Sunda shelf, and many other sites far from glaciated regions (e.g. Peltier et al, 2002; Fleming, 1998; Bard et al., 1990, 1996; Chappell and Polach, 1991; Fairbanks, 1989; Locker et al, 1996; Okudo and Nakada, 1999). Again, see Fig. 3b from Lambeck and Chappell (2001) <a href="http://allusions.wcp.muohio.edu/SeaLevel/sealevelandglaciers.pdf" target="_blank">Sea level change through the last glacial cycle</a>

When I asked the author about this conflict with the eustatic curve, he said:

On the isostatic adjustment being completed in less than a few hundred years. I don't believe that the flood was compensated for by isostatic forces in the asthenosphere. For the majority of this massive shift would have had to occur in less than a year, which is several magnitudes beyond the possible rates of ordinary isostatic compensation. Shifts of this size and speed could have originated only much deeper in the earth where the earth is hotter and more fluid.

So, by Anderson's admission, the theory cannot be reconciled with the eustatic sea level data using any 'normal' mantle response to glacial loading and unloading, but requires some form of unsubstantiated, rapid deep-earth movements.


References:

Adkins, J., and D. Schrag, 2001. Pore fluid constraints on deep ocean temperature and salinity during the last glacial maximum, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, pp. 771-774.

Bard E., Hamelin B. and Fairbanks R.G. , 1990. U/Th ages obtained by mass spectrometry in corals from Barbados. sea level during the past 130,000 years. Nature 346, 456-458.

Bard E., Hamelin B., Arnold M., Montaggioni L., Cabioch G., Faure G., and Rougerie F., 1996. Deglacial sea level record from Tahiti corals and the timing of global meltwater discharge. Nature 382, 241-244.

Chappell J. and Polach H., 1991. Post-glacial sea-level rise from a coral record at Huon Peninsula, Papua New-Guinea. Nature 349, 147-149.

Daansgaard and Tauber, 1969. Glacier oxygen-18 content and Pleistocene ocean temperature. Science 166, pp. 499-502.

Duplessy et al., 2002. Constraints on teh ocean oxygen isotopic enrichment between the Last Glacial Maximum and the Holocen: Paleoceanographic implications. Quaternary Sciene Reviews 21, pp. 315-330.

Emiliani, C., 1955. Pleistocene temperatures. Journal of Geology, 63: 538-578.

Fairbanks, R.G., 1989. A 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea level record: influence of glacial melting rates on the younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation. Nature, 342, 637-642.

Ferland, M.A., Roy, P.S. and Murray-Wallace, C.V., 1995, Glacial lowstand deposits on the outer continental shelf of Southeastern Australia, Quaternary Research, 44, 294-299.

Fleming K., Johnston P., Zwartz D., Yokoyama Y., Lambeck K., and Chappell J., 1998. Refining the eustatic sea-level curve since the Last Glacial Maximum using far- and intermediate-field sites. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 163, 327-342.

Lambeck K, Chappell J., 2001. Sea level change through the last glacial cycle. Science 292, pp. 679-686.

Lea, David. W., Pamela A. Martin, Dorothy K. Pak and Howard J. Spero, 2002. Reconstructing a 350 ky history of sea level using planktonic Mg/Ca and oxygen isotope records from a Cocos Ridge core. Quaternary Science Reviews 21, pp. 283-293

Locker, S. D., Hine, A. C., Tedesco, L. P., and Shinn, E. A., 1996. Magnitude and timing of episodic sea-level rise during the last deglaciation.Geology, 24 (9), 827-830.

Miller, K.G., Mountain, G.S., the Leg 150 Shipboard Party, and Members of the New Jersey Coastal Plain Drilling Project, Drilling and dating New Jersey Oligocene-Miocene sequences: ice volume, global sea level, and Exxon records, Science, 271: 1092-1094, 1996.

Mix, A. C., 1987. The oxygen-isotope record of glaciation, in Ruddiman, W. F., and Wright, H. E., Jr., eds., North America and adjacent oceans during the last deglaciation: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, Geology of North America, v. K-3, p. 111-135.

Okuno, J., and Nakada, M., 1999. Total volume and temporal variation of meltwater from the last glacial maximum inferred from sea-level observations at Barbados and Tahiti. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 146, 283-293.

Peltier, W.R., 2002. On eustatic sea level history: Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene Quaternary Science Reviews 21 (1-3), pp. 377-396.

Ramsay, P.J., Cooper, J.A.G., 2002. Late Quaternary sea-level change in South Africa, Quaternary Research 57, 82-90.

Schrag, D.P., Hampt, G., Murray, D.W., 1996. Pore fluid constraints on the temperature and oxygen isotopic composition of the glacial ocean. Science 272, pp. 1930-1932.

Yokoyama, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K., 2000. Timing of the Last Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Dr.GH

Howdy Patrick. Your William Anderson seems to be the same person that has been posting over at OCW (now creationweb) under the nome de internet of "wmscott." He has been pushing his BS there for a few months, including some verbatum self promotion.

liquid

I'm stunned. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Kosh

Patrick, if you buy the book and read it, then
that means you can post a "review" of your own
at Amazon, right?

Oolon Colluphid

As far as I know (ie the UK site at least) you don't even have to have bought it (though it pays to have read it ) to post a review.

Oolon

butswana

Anyone can post a review for anything on Amazon. I like to check reviews of books that are critical of religion. Fundies post crazy shit, and you know they didn't read it.

Kosh

I realize that, but we wouldn't wanna review it
without actually having studied it,like some
cretinists would...

Dr.GH

Based on what I have read of William "wmscott" Anderson's case presented at creationweb, nee OCW, Patrick should post his review to Amazon. He has done an excellent job (as always )and it would be a service to anyone who might waste their money.

Ah ha, I suspected that Scott was his middle name.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

John Solum

Hi Patrick,

Excellent work. I assume you'll be adding this to your website? I think it'd make a great addition.

I'd like to make a few comments:

I think it'd be useful to point out that if the event occurred at the end of the last ice age, then the volume of ice available to cause this flood would be less than that of the LGM.

Your presentation of the various ways in which the volume of ice at the LGM can be calculated is excellent. All of the ice volumes are reported as "greater than present day", and I think it'd be helpful to include the total volume as well (maybe in parentheses).

I liked your discussion of paleosalinity, but I didn't see a related estimate of the ice volume. You mention a salinity decrease of 2.5% from the LGM to the present, but you never convert that to an ice volume.

Finally, I'd like to read more about Scott's comments about isostatic compensation in the mantle. Is there a URL you can refer me to?

John

ps418

Originally posted by John Solum:

I liked your discussion of paleosalinity, but I didn't see a related estimate of the ice volume. You mention a salinity decrease of 2.5% from the LGM to the present, but you never convert that to an ice volume.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get the Adkins and Schrag paper itself, which presents the calculations, since the UofL library doesn't have Geophysics Research Letters. I learned of this paper a few days ago when I read the review by Duplessy et al. (2002).

But I assume that a 2.5 increase in salinity would correspond to removal of 2.5% of the ocean by evaporation. If the volume of ocean water is 1360x10^6 km3, then a 2.5% salinity increase would correspond to the removal by evaporation of 34x10^6 km3 of ocean water, whereas a salinity increase of 3% would correspond to 40x10^6km3. I'm not sure how to convert this water volume to ice volume, but I assume (?) that the ice volume would be larger than the water volume.


Finally, I'd like to read more about Scott's comments about isostatic compensation in the mantle. Is there a URL you can refer me to?


Unfortunately, the author never offered any details on this, and as far I know he doesn't offer any details on this in his book either.