The Ice Age

BROTHER GLEN

I am just a christian seeker of knowledge and would like to know according creationist model what was the cause of the Ice Age?
Brother Glen

HELEN

Hi, Glen,

An ice age cannot be caused by normal weather patterns as we know them.
For ice to build up to the extent we associate with an ice age, there
must be a combination of two factors: an area where enormous amounts of
water are being evaporated into the atmosphere (a very warm and wet
area) and then a strong enough wind system to get these clouds over very
cold areas to dump layers and layers of snow on them, which will
compress to ice under the weight of themselves.

Although a lot of creationists believe that the Flood of Noah itself
precipitated the ice age, I don’t think so. I think that the Flood had
been over for several hundred years and it was the rampant volcanism
which followed later which drove the forces which produced the ice age.
This would have provided both the heat and the moisture as well as the
clouded atmosphere which would have resulted in severe cooling, thus
keeping the snow on the ground while storm wave after storm wave swept
over the affected areas.

BROTHER GLEN

Helen you said Although a lot of creationists believe that the Flood of Noah itself
precipitated the ice age, I don't think so. I think that the Flood had
been over for several hundred years and it was the rampant volcanism
which followed later which drove the forces which produced the ice age.

What about the different animals that have been found preserved in ice? Does that speak of a pre or post flood ice age? Is there any way to say for sure?... Brother Glen

JOE MEERT

Where is this ice age described in the post-flood accounts? For that
matter, where is this volcanism described? You can’t make things up and
then insist on a literal bible! In addition, your ‘trigger’ is a bit
problematic. Let’s consider some of the scientific merits of what you
claim.
(1) There is no geologic evidence to support the notion of massive
volcanism some 3800 years ago.
(2) There was not a ‘single’ ice age. There have been many ‘ice ages’
and some of them simply do not fit into your post flood scenario. For
example, the Precambrian glaciations, the Ordovician glaciations, the
Devonian glaciations and the Permo-Carboniferous glaciations. You may
also want to read about the more recent Pleistocene glaciation(s) plural
emphasis.
(3) Volcanism alone, no matter how massive, will not trigger an ice
age. The feedback mechanisms between volcanism and glaciation are
fairly complex. For example, volcanism releases quite a bit of CO2 into
the atmosphere. CO2 has a greenhouse effect rather than an icehouse
effect. Those ‘clouds’ you speak of are also good insulators for solar
radiation. Nevertheless, there are some other feedback mechanisms which
may help drawdown this CO2 and generate cooler temperatures. The key
seems to be that the volcanism must be basaltic. Basaltic volcanism
will weather rapidly and this continental weathering will, in turn,
remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Here is an abstract of some work we are
presenting at the EGS meeting:, but this is a long-term process and does
not act during the time scales you need. Note, this conclusion is
independent of the old earth young earth debate!

IMPACT OF BASALTIC ROCK EMPLACEMENT ON ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AND CLIMATE

A. Grard (1), L. François (1), C. Dessert (2), B. Dupré (2), Y. Goddéris
(2), J. Meert (3)
(1) Laboratoire de Physique Atmosphérique et Planétaire, Université de
Liège, Liège, Belgium, (2) Laboratoire des Mécanismes de Transfert en
Géologie, CNRS UMR5563 - Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, (3)
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, USA
francois@astro.ulg.ac.be

Volcanic eruptions are known to have short-term effects on global cimate
through the release of aerosols in the stratosphere. Large volcanic
eruptions are thus considered as potential candidates for initiating
major climatic and biological crises in the Earth's history. On the
other hand, changes in tectonic activity and average volcanism is
generally thought as one of the major driving forces of climate change
at the geological timescale (> 1 my), through the release of CO2 in the
atmosphere and the associated greenhouse warming. At this timescale, the
volcanic release of CO2 into the atmosphere-ocean system is balanced by
its consumption during silicate weathering followed by carbonate
deposition. This equilibrium is reached dynamically through the negative
feedback of silicate weathering, as the system evolves towards an
hypothetic steady state. Thus, in this simplified view of the long-term
carbon cycle, volcanic activity is thought to play a role on the source
of CO2, but does not act directly on its sink. This assertion fails to
be true in the case of subaerial basaltic volcanism, where the eruption
not only releases CO2 to the atmosphere, but also produces balsaltic
rocks which weather much more rapidly than the average continental
crust, enhancing CO2 consumption. As shown recently by some of us
(Dessert et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 188:459-474, 2001), the
emplacement of the Deccan basaltic traps at the K-T boundary may have
led to a transient increase of atmospheric CO2 over a few hundred
thousand years, followed by a drop towards CO2 levels lower, and climate
cooler, than prior the emplacement. This trend towards a lower CO2 level
is still effective today and will persist until the Deccan traps are
completely weathered. Hence, basaltic emplacements appear to act both as
short- and long-term climatic factors. The succession of basaltic
emplacements which occurred during the Cenozoic may explain at least
part of the climatic cooling recorded over the same period. Similarly,
the emplacement of the Siberian traps at the Permo-Trias boundary had a
profound impact on the Triassic climate. Model simulations are presented
to investigate the possibility that sharp cooling or glacial periods may
have been produced by the formation of large basaltic provinces,
especially if these occur under warm and wet tropical climates.

BARRY SETTERFIELD

Hi Glen!

It has become “traditional” in YEC circles to hold to a “one Flood did everything” model, and on this basis the last Ice-age has been described as the aftermath of the Flood process. As far as I can determine, this suggestion was originally put forward by Dr. Henry Morris in his book “The Genesis Flood” back in the 1960’s. This opinion has largely held sway ever since and much Creationist research in a variety of areas has
been done on this basis. Although I can understand the rationale behind this model, I think that perhaps it has a number of weaknesses that have not been addressed.

Both the Bible and the geologic record seem to indicate that there was more than one catastrophe. I think my research has accounted for all this. The fact that the long ages indicated by radiometric dating are easily collapsed into the young earth model due to the fact that radioactive decay was exponentially faster in the beginning is the key to understanding the timing of these catastrophic events.

On the one hand, the groups like ICR who support the Flood model as being responsible for the vast majority of the geologic column are really not able to answer the ice age(s) problem. But on the other, the ancient age theorists like Joe also run into problems because he has no way of knowing which deposits might have been the result of rapid and catastrophic forces and which might have been the result of long and gradual accumulations of material.

I find myself agreeing with Joe Meert that there was more than one ice age. In line with the model I have worked out in line with the data, the whole geological column was laid down over a period of roughly 3000 years. The Permian/Triassic ice-age and the link with the Siberian flood basalts is thereby retained, as is the link between the last ice-age and the Deccan Traps (flood basalts) in India as Joe Meert has asserted.

The asteroid impacts (at least 5) closed the Mesozoic and decimated the dinosaurs, following which the final phases of continental drift were set in motion. This event in Scripture and in the Variable Lightspeed (Vc) model coincides with the time of Peleg in Genesis 10:25 where we are told “In his days the land masses were divided [literal Hebrew].” On this model there was a rapid upthrusting of mountains, a much higher axis tilt due to the impacts, and the outpouring of flood basalts. This combination of factors led to new climatic conditions. Thus the massive quantities of water vapour in the atmosphere along with the impact induced global wildfires and the associated ash blocking out the sun led to the onset of ice-age conditions when the new atmospheric circulation pattern due to high axis tilt and upthrust mountains are considered.

As far as the Scriptural record of these events are concerned, I invite you to reconsider the book of Job. In cognate languages (languages of the same family group) the word Job is the same as Jobab. In Genesis 10:26, 27 we find that a Jobab was the last son born to Joktan, the brother to Peleg. (As an aside, it might be mentioned that the word Peleg is a root word which implies splitting apart of land with water coming in as a result, while Joktan means “earthquake”. Thus we get the “pelagic” ocean deposits of geology, while the old Grecian name for the Mediterranean of “Pelagos” – both words from the same root. A complete study of these two names and their roots turns up a surprising amount of information which backs up the comment in Genesis 10:25.) Thus this Jobab was living at the close of this period when continental drift was occurring and ice-age conditions were in force.

What is the evidence for this, Scripturally? Consider first the effects of asteroidal impacts. In Job 9:5-7 we have an eyewitness account that reads “God removes the mountains and overturns them in His anger; He shakes the earth out of its place and its core trembles; He commands the sun, and it does not rise; and He blots out the stars…” This is specific enough language that to pass it by as being “poetic” or “nearly poetic” is to miss the meaning of what is being said. Then consider the effects of enhanced continental drift – surely there would be massive tidal movements and tsunamis. In Job 12:15; 14:11 and 30:14 we read that Job and his fellows were familiar with the fact that “God withholds the waters, and the sea dries up; He sends them out, and they overwhelm the earth…For the waters fail from the sea, and the ocean flood dries up…They come as broad breakers, as the wide breaking in of ocean waters; under the ruinous storm they roll along.” Concurrently, there would be the effects of rifting, volcanism and the outpouring of magma. Job and his companions testify of these effects like this: “The mountains fall and crumble away, and the rock is moved from its place … For God overturns the mountains from their roots and cuts out channels through the rocks; …and underneath it is turned to fire, whose stones are the source of sapphires and contains gold dust.” (Job 28:9, 14:18).

Then there is the experiencing of ice-age conditions in the Mid-East when the ocean is frozen over as recorded in Job 38:29-30 “From whose womb comes the ice? …The ocean waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.”

One final point may be mentioned. As a result of devastating asteroid impacts and the accompanying wild-fires, all existing structures would have been destroyed, and now an ice-age was upon the survivors. Where could they find shelter? The logical place is a cave. Consequently, this was also the period of the cave-dwellers – they were simply ordinary humans who lived in caves to try and re-establish society. In Job 24:7-8, and 30:3-7 these people are mentioned:“They were gaunt with want and famine, and plucked mallow by the bushes, and broom-tree roots for their food … They lived in the clefts of the valleys, their houses were the caves in the rocks, and they lived under the wild bushes…They spend the night naked, without clothing, and have no covering in the cold. They are wet with the showers of the mountains, and huddle around the rock for want of shelter.”

Under these circumstances, I think that the Bible does give a record of events associated with continental division and the last ice-age.

Barry Setterfield

JOE MEERT

Barry seems to think that the relationships between the Deccan traps and
Siberian traps and climate can hold up in the young earth model.
The main problem with trying to squeeze
this into a young earth scenario (regardless of how one views
radiometric decay) is that the mechanisms for generating the cooler
climate take time. You cannot erupt and erode the Siberian traps (or
the Deccan for that matter) in the space of a few hundred years, draw
the CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it again. This is one big
problem for young earth creationism. You can artificially claim that
radiometric dates have changed, you can assert that fossils are the
result of the flood, you can claim that plates moved at lightning
speeds, but you cannot change the climate through this mechanism in the
space of a few hundred years (remember you also have to cycle it back
again as well!). I also noticed that Barry failed to address the Precambrian
ice ages. Think about the time spans involved here regardless of how
one feels about radiometric dating. YOU CAN’T SQUEEZE IT IN. The other
thing that no-one wants to discuss is the evidence for multiple ICE AGES
in the bible. Surely these multiple ice ages would be mentioned as
distinct events. I think this is an assertion by ye-creationists that
was not well thought out.

Cheers

Joe Meert

BARRY SETTERFIELD

Joe brings up several issues here. The Vc model, that was briefly
presented here, has the advantage over the “Traditional” YEC position in
that it does maintain the temporal proximity of the formation of the
Siberian traps and the Permian ice age and the much later event of the
Deccan traps and the Pleistocene ice-age. By contrast, the “traditional”
YEC view usually claims that both these events happened within one year,
and not necessarily in that chronological order. Despite this advantage,
Joe is concerned about two issues: (1) The rapid climate change, and (2)
the Precambrian ice-ages.

It needs to be mentioned that the eruption of both the Siberian and
Deccan traps could well have happened rapidly. One school of thought
holds that these areas were formed as a result of massive impacts
penetrating the crust and releasing the basalt. This would have of
necessity been a rapid occurrence. As far as erosion goes, it should be
noted that these materials would be soft for quite a while and this
during times of geologic upheaval. So erosion processes would be
expected to take their toll in a short amount of time where these areas
are concerned.

However, Joe appears to be looking at the eruption and erosion of the
traps solely in relation to the cycling of CO2 as the cause of the
ice-ages, in line with current thinking. What I pointed out in my
original post was that there are other concurrent factors, which Joe has
not included, that speed up the whole process. These were listed off in
the original post as high axis tilt (which makes the poles significantly
colder), high water vapour content in the atmosphere (which means rapid
precipitation over colder poles), and mountain upthrusting (which
significantly changes the atmospheric circulation pattern). On this
basis, both the precipitation and cooling processes would be more rapid.

On the second issue regarding the Precambrian ice ages, I come from
South Australia which has the type-section for the middle and upper
Pre-Cambrian which includes the tillite and other beds in question, as
well as strata from the Permian and Pleistocene ice-ages. On this basis,
as well as university training in geology and subsequent work in that
field, I have a reasonable understanding of what Joe is talking about.

The first point that I want to make is the very different appearance of
the Precambrian tillites and associated beds compared with those of the
Permian and Pleistocene events. The Precambrian tillites are like cement
with unsorted boulders, pebbles and gravels mixed into the solid matrix.
By contrast, the Permian and Pleistocene beds are certainly not
cemented, but closely resemble glacial sediments and associated debris
seen today, but merely compacted. Read and Watson in their introductory
text on Geology also state that the Precambrian strata were different
from that left from the other ice-ages on a world-wide basis. This
suggests that something different was happening in the Precambrian case.
Furthermore, on the basis of what is seen in South Australia, the
geologists at Adelaide University have trashed the current “snowball
earth” paradigm as the explanation for these Precambrian beds on at
least 10 counts in several journals.

The question then becomes, “What was the cause of these Precambrian
tillites and associated strata?” They date, radiometrically, from about
750 million years to about 600 million years worldwide. With the speed
of light correction, this period becomes the same as Noah’s worldwide
Flood. I believe that it may be profitable to reconsider the origins of
these strata in light of that. The debris making up the tillites in the
Adelaide region have their source area some 500 km away to the west, yet
they are still angular, which is not good evidence for glacial origin.
However a flood would cart and deposit this material very quickly,
leaving the debris as sharp-edged as that which we see there. The
various phases of the Flood would give rise to the various phases of the
Precambrian “ice age” strata.

Joe then asserts that the Bible should mention multiple ice ages in
order to be scientifically correct. This is not necessarily so. The
Bible is primarily concerned with God’s relationship with man and not
with geologic activity. It is only where this activity reflects this
relationship that the Bible comments upon it. Comments by some of the
Biblical authors do help us put some of the pieces together, but the
Bible itself is silent in terms of explanations.

JOE MEERT

Joe brings up several issues here. The Vc model, that was briefly
presented here, has the advantage over the “Traditional” YEC position in
that it does maintain the temporal proximity of the formation of the
Siberian traps and the Permian ice age and the much later event of the
Deccan traps and the Pleistocene ice-age. By contrast, the “traditional”
YEC view usually claims that both these events happened within one year,
and not necessarily in that chronological order. Despite this advantage,
Joe is concerned about two issues: (1) The rapid climate change, and (2)
the Precambrian ice-ages.

Click to expand...

JM: It’s not just the Siberian and Deccan traps being erupted that I am
concerned about! For one, its your claim that the Siberian traps are
responsible for the Permo-Carboniferous glaciation. That’s quite a
trick since the glaciations precede the eruption of the traps!

[/quote]It needs to be mentioned that the eruption of both the Siberian
and
Deccan traps could well have happened rapidly. One school of thought
holds that these areas were formed as a result of massive impacts
penetrating the crust and releasing the basalt. This would have of
necessity been a rapid occurrence. As far as erosion goes, it should be
noted that these materials would be soft for quite a while and this
during times of geologic upheaval. So erosion processes would be
expected to take their toll in a short amount of time where these areas
are concerned. [/quote]

JM: You’re mixing and matching ideas here. There is evidence for a
meteor impact at about the same time as the Deccan trap volcanism, but
to my knowledge there is no evidence that a meteor caused the Deccan
trap volcanism. Evidence for an impact at the time of the Siberian
traps is less compelling. Why don’t we get down to some specifics
instead of throwing out a bunch of ‘well it mighta been this way’. How
long do you think it took to erupt both the Siberian and Deccan traps?
Your statement about erosion is rather naïve. Once the rock erupted it
would begin to solidify and given the sheer volume of volcanism in the
Deccan and given the short amount of time you allow for its eruption,
erosion is not going to occur more rapidly because you are constantly
piling fresh basalt on the old. Think about it, let’s say it all
erupted in one years time. That’s 8.2 x 10^6 km^3 of basalt pouring out
in that period. That’s about ~300 m^3 of basalt per second!! Once it
hardens (and there is clear evidence that a lot of the Siberian and
Deccan traps remain as rock), it takes time to erode. So, give me some
of your estimates of erosive rates since the time the Deccan and
Siberian traps eroded? I want you to tell me (a) when they were erupted
(within a few hundred years in the ye-scenario) and (b) relative to the
current volume of material left, how much eroded?

However, Joe appears to be looking at the eruption and erosion of
the
traps solely in relation to the cycling of CO2 as the cause of the
ice-ages, in line with current thinking.

Click to expand...

JM: No, I am not. I am looking at the whole picture. You seem to be
glossing over details that are important in the discussion. Important
items such as when, how, how fast and how much!

What I pointed out in my
original post was that there are other concurrent factors, which Joe has
not included, that speed up the whole process. These were listed off in
the original post as high axis tilt (which makes the poles significantly
colder), high water vapour content in the atmosphere (which means rapid
precipitation over colder poles), and mountain upthrusting (which
significantly changes the atmospheric circulation pattern). On this
basis, both the precipitation and cooling processes would be more rapid.

Click to expand...

JM: Are you joking? I cannot believe this is what you think happens
with increased tilt of the axis. That is simply wrong and I am
surprised that a physicist wouldn’t understand this! If you increase
the tilt of the axis--- a couple of things happen. First, the climatic
conditions on the poles change dramatically from summer to winter and do
not favor the formation of glaciers (see Williams, 2000). It is the
equatorial region that becomes susceptible to glaciation. Secondly, you
are now tossing in mountain upthrusting into the equation. The effects
of mountains on climate depends very much on where the mountains rise.
So, where did these mountains rise? When did these mountains rise and
at what rate did these mountains rise? Please give the details and
please review the effects of increasing the axial tilt. While you are
reviewing those effects, please tell me when this axial tilt changed, to
what degree and how it returned to 23 degrees. Please supply details
not ‘mighta been’ stories. For example, please explain the actual
physical mechanisms for changing the tilt in whatever period of time you
claim the tilt to have changed. What caused the tilting and what caused
it to return to ‘normal’?

[/quote]On the second issue regarding the Precambrian ice ages, I come
from
South Australia which has the type-section for the middle and upper
Pre-Cambrian[/quote]

JM: It does not contain the type section. That is still being discussed
although it is one of the favorites. Other candidates are in Siberia,
Namibia, China and North America.

which includes the tillite and other beds in question, as
well as strata from the Permian and Pleistocene ice-ages. On this basis,
as well as university training in geology and subsequent work in that
field, I have a reasonable understanding of what Joe is talking about.

Click to expand...

JM: It contains ‘tillites’ (plural).

The first point that I want to make is the very different
appearance of
the Precambrian tillites and associated beds compared with those of the
Permian and Pleistocene events. The Precambrian tillites are like cement
with unsorted boulders, pebbles and gravels mixed into the solid matrix.
By contrast, the Permian and Pleistocene beds are certainly not
cemented, but closely resemble glacial sediments and associated debris
seen today, but merely compacted. Read and Watson in their introductory
text on Geology also state that the Precambrian strata were different
from that left from the other ice-ages on a world-wide basis. This
suggests that something different was happening in the Precambrian case.

Furthermore, on the basis of what is seen in South Australia, the
geologists at Adelaide University have trashed the current “snowball
earth” paradigm as the explanation for these Precambrian beds on at
least 10 counts in several journals.

Click to expand...

JM: Who claimed there was a snowball? The Australian who is doing most
of the ‘trashing’ is George Williams because he favors an alternate
explanation for the glaciations. He is NOT arguing that the glaciations
don’t exist or that they did not happen, he is arguing for an
alternative mechanism!! By the way, if you are familiar at all with the
geologic literature, you would know that I wrote a 1994 paper called “No
More Snowball Earth” so I am hardly an ally for the snowball hypothesis!
I do not deny that the glaciations have occurred. However, what you are
alluding to is that the tillites (in Australia) are not glacial in
origin. Unfortunately, the debate does not include ‘all the Precambrian
tillites’. I just completed a field season working on the
Neoproterozoic tillites in Norway (from the type section for the
Varangian glaciation). These are indisputably glacial as are many other
tillites worldwide. I can’t think of a single Aussie geologist who
claims that all Precambrian tillites are mistakenly identified, nor do I
know of many who claim that the Aussie tillites are non-glacial. It’s easy to make
assertions on web pages like these, quite another thing to actually
publish your ideas (as you well know!).

The question then becomes, “What was the cause of these
Precambrian
tillites and associated strata?” They date, radiometrically, from about
750 million years to about 600 million years worldwide.

Click to expand...

JM: Really? The dating on them is uniformly poor or
non-existent—tillites tend not to be dateable rock types (see Evans,
2000). The 750-600 Ma interval is most widely cited, because it is
clear that some of the glacial rocks occurred during this interval. One
of the best dated tillites, the Squantum tillite (Boston Basin) is
younger. Let me note here that the problem in dating tillites stems
from the fact that the rocks are found in sedimentary successions that
are difficult to date and contain few diagnostic fossils. This seems to
go against your assertion that they were deposited during the Noachian
flood (see next paragraph).

With the speed
of light correction, this period becomes the same as Noah’s worldwide
Flood. I believe that it may be profitable to reconsider the origins of
these strata in light of that.

Click to expand...

JM: Of course, no one has yet conclusively shown that the speed of light
has varied! It is your
opinion that this COULD be the case and you have submitted your
arguments to your peers, but there are many notions out there that don’t
ever survive the critical eyes of science. Once it is published, we can
discuss its relevance to other issues, but I see no profitability in
adding another ‘mighta been this’ to a mountain of ‘mighta beens’. By
the way, I am glad to see that at least one creationist (you) is willing
to submit their publication through normal channels. Peer-review is a
tough process, but it is how good science gets done.

[/quote] The debris making up the tillites in the
Adelaide region have their source area some 500 km away to the west, yet
they are still angular, which is not good evidence for glacial
origin.[/quote]

JM: What makes you think glaciers round every clast? Glacial erosion is
highly variable. Glaciers entrain a lot of material after ripping it
off the ground or sides of mountains. These clasts tend to be angular
and while entrained, they will not be rounded. Glaciers deposit the
material as it moves down through the ice and into the meltwater stream
where it can be rounded or deposited as is. Glaciers also pulverize
rock (loess), so the deposits left by glaciers tend to be highly
variable. The fact that there are angular clasts in the Adelaide
deposits does not necessarily indicate a non-glacial origin.

[/quote]However a flood would cart and deposit this material very
quickly,
leaving the debris as sharp-edged as that which we see there. The
various phases of the Flood would give rise to the various phases of the
Precambrian “ice age” strata. [/quote]

JM: Well, since your argument about angular clasts is incorrect, I see
no need to argue about a flood. However, let’s now take your word for
it that the Precambrian marks the time of the flood of Noah. Now, how
long does that flood last? What strata globally mark the onset and
termination of the flood? Be specific.

[/quote]Joe then asserts that the Bible should mention multiple ice ages
in
order to be scientifically correct. This is not necessarily so. The
Bible is primarily concerned with God’s relationship with man and not
with geologic activity. [/quote]

JM: Darn tootin! That’s what I’ve been saying all along! The Bible is
not a scientific text, it is a book about salvation. No one (including
you and Helen and other ye-creationists) should try to force it to be
scientifically accurate because it (a) is not a science book and (b) was
never meant to be used (or misused) as a scientific text. I’ve said it
to others and I’ll repeat it again. It seems to me that young earth
creationists worship the Bible as God rather than the God of the Bible
when trying to force science to fit their interpretation of it.

It is only where this activity reflects this
relationship that the Bible comments upon it. Comments by some of the
Biblical authors do help us put some of the pieces together, but the
Bible itself is silent in terms of explanations.

Click to expand...

JM: However, don’t you think that the massive eruptions of the Deccan
and Siberian traps along with the ensuing ice ages would deserve a bit
of mention in the Bible given your claim of severity? At 300 m^3/sec
don’t you think someone would take notice?

Cheers

Joe Meert