| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Actually, Tilo, this area was never glaciated. Makes you think. Or ought to.
PS I am putting a a hard return into your URL (Ooh, missus) to preserve the page width. Patrons wishing to access it should paste it.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Actually, Tilo, this area was never glaciated. Makes you think... |
There is considerable disagreement in academia about the extent of glaciers during the last ice age.
One way of resolving this issue is to look at where the ice sits during the current warm period and extrapolate from this.
The largest city at the southernmost reach of the Amur is the large city of Khabarovsk, which sits at a latitude of ~50 North - this table shows monthly average temperatures...
This is the winter view of the Amur looking away from Khabarovsk, with gruffy ice thick enough to stand on...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
The Amur river continues North from Khabarovsk until it empties into the Sea of Okhotsk near Nikolayevsk-na-Amure and opposite the northern end of the island of Sakhalin. Here's a shot taken early spring looking from Nikolayevsk...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Guess what happens in the Sea of Okhotsk each winter...
The above shows the April 2010 sea ice cover, courtesy of NSIDC, Boulder - the purple line shows the estimated 30y average extent.
So still subject to the deep freeze from the mouth of the Amur northwards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Finally we have this recent map of the area covered by the last ice age, which seems to fit with current climatology for this region, although other 'experts' still cling on to the view that the area was unaffected during the last ice age...
So, you see, in view of what is happening today it would be extremely unlikely that the Amur river valley would be ice free during the last ice age. It is still covered in ice each winter in the 21st century; this during a period of unprecedented and catastrophic global warming, which is even causing cars to melt in London!
N.B. Apologies in advance if any URLs or images exceed the width of the screens on the few remaining prehistoric computers still in existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You are confusing two things. Nobody doubts that the Amur ices up. That is different from having five thousand feet of ice permanently sitting on top of it. A child of six can work out whether an area has been glaciated in the recent past so if you find an academic (or anybody else over the age of six) that says that the Amur Valley has been glaciated in the recent past, let me know and I will eat my horse.
Your next task is to explain how an area that is currently subject to various extreme cold conditions can possible have escaped glaciation when everywhere else of similar ilk did not during the last 'Ice Age'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Just noticed that right in the Amur estuary is a small islet, which looks like it could possibly be tidal...
The two bays, top left and right, also look a bit strange. As does the sand-bar to the left of Zaliv Baykal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| For if the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile and Mississippi are all linked and supposed artificial, then we really have no excuse for excepting any of the world's great river systems as natural in origin. The Amazon, the Congo, the Indus, the Ganges, and the Yangtze -- these must be presumed of artificial origin. There can be no special cases (unless proven otherwise). We must conclude that nature does not, in fact, create natural rivers on such a massive scale. |
As usual I cannot go all the way with Ishmael. Of course if Ishmael had actually finished TME (he hated it!) he would have read in Chapter Ten how various large rivers came into existence -- accidentally or otherwise -- thanks to the machinations of early agriculturalists. However I have confined my claims to 'cradle civilisation' and desert rivers. The Nile qualifies but not the Mississippi-Missouri. But naturally Ishmael is free to take the cudgels further.
On the subject of the Amur, this has always been a significant river in SLOT theory since it is the most northerly of the Pacific western rivers that bisected the submarine alluvial fan that we nowadays call China and which became land after the lowering of the Pacific.
However, thanks to some of the comments here, it may be that the Amur is in fact the western version of the Snake on the other side of the Pacific (and which we have discussed from time to time) ie an inland river that forced its way out to the new low-level Pacific and left a highly anomalous river valley and flood plain to remind us of that Event.
If that is so then the Amur and the Snake will prove to have remarkable but common attributes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I have confined my claims to 'cradle civilisation' and desert rivers. The Nile qualifies but not the Mississippi-Missouri. |
But how do we know the Mississippi is not a cradle civilization?
(Or the offspring of one)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Why is it that the southern states had slaves while the north did not?
Both Upper Mississippi and Lower Mississippi were settled by the same peoples, were they not? Why would English settlers in the South create a slave-based economy while their brothers and sisters in the North didn't?
I suggest the southern English inherited slavery. They were not its authors.
But if they simply took over existing plantations (or an existing plantation system), who started that system? Who planted the plantations along the annually-flooding river-banks of the Mississippi river?
The Spanish did not keep slaves so that would rule them out.
The Dutch are a real possibility. They have a long history with slavery. But what evidence is there for Dutch colonization of the Mississippi?
Yet even the Dutch were newcomers to slavery. The world center for slavery has always been and remains to this day: North Africa. And who do we find living along the banks of North America's longest river? Africans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| But how do we know the Mississippi is not a cradle civilization? Or the offspring of one. |
We don't. However the theory is that when grassland-creators run into deserts they observe that deserts are excellent for grass cultivation because a) the sand is so friable and b) the sun shines all day every day. The only thing lacking is water, so they create the Nile, the Tigris/Euphrates, the Indus, the Yellow and the Colorado.
It is difficult to see how this process would operate in the eastern half of the USA where grass cultivation is possible everywhere without the need for large scale irrigation projects. But of course I await your proposals with interest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | ...It is difficult to see how this process would operate... |
But that "this" process is anywhere in operation is but a theory. If it fits the dataset you have, so-be-it. It's a great idea.
If, however, I can demonstrate that rivers such as the Mississipi and Amur belong in the same dataset, and your theory does not account for them, the problem is not with the dataset.
And to get my rivers included, I don't need to make them conform to your theory. I only have to find some significant, common thread that both unites them all and raises the same degree of suspicion regarding artificiality in all cases. Frankly, if there are enough common threads, it raises the specter of either their all being artificial or their all being natural without a middle-ground to find.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
What drew my attention to the Mississippi was not the writings or Mark Twain, that most famous of riverboat pilots. What drew my attention to the Mississippi was this map.
The map shows the ethnic distribution of Americans across the continent. Europeans in America are coloured blue. Africans in America are coloured green.
My attention was immediately drawn to the line of deep green snaking upwards from Louisiana. In that moment, all of the aforementioned amazing parallels between the Mississippi and the Nile flooded into my mind in one massive gulp.
But there is at least one other very interesting observation to be made regarding this map.
Can you spot it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Can you spot it? |
If you draw two lines northward (one from each end of the US-Mexican border) you will find that nobody actually wants to live between these boundaries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Ishmael wrote: | | Can you spot it? |
If you draw two lines northward (one from each end of the US-Mexican border) you will find that nobody actually wants to live between these boundaries. |
Exactly.
Half the American continent is effectively devoid of population.
Now why would this be so?
The conventional answer likely would attribute the lack of population to geography and climate: Things start to get dry and mountainous as one heads west of the Mississippi.
Yet the Mountains did not impinge upon the growth of Denver (one of the few anomalous human colonies in this part of the world) and not even desert stood in the way of Las Vegas.
And if we look to the south, we see something similar: The major population centers of Texas are pushed up right against the former Mexican border and all that territory America took post-Alamo? Effectively empty.
And that, I think, explains what is going on.
What am I suggesting?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
