Getting Your Ice Age On and Off

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Identical with Randall Carlson's theory regarding Atlantis, he proposes that the initiation and termination of Ice Ages are triggered by high energy cosmic impact events that switch the Earth's equilibrium into a different climatic paradigm. The presence (or lack thereof) of massive pole centric glacial sheets act as the key feedback impediments to alternate between the two states. As he discusses about this subject, the amount of energy differential needed to transition is not available from either terrestrial and/or solar sources, while discoveries of impact craters upon the Earth in only the last few decades reveal that we ignorantly live on a virtual cosmic shooting gallery.

Carlson proposes that such as a dual (or multi-strike) strike phenomenon can initiate an Ice Age, via one strike raising massive amounts of particulates into the atmosphere, while a separate ocean strike launches massive amounts of water into the air. The combination of the two leading to prolonged massive precipitations, importantly in polar regions. This massive precipitation as snow converts to ice and changes the albedo of the Earth such that subsequent years' snow will not melt and thus an Ice Age is launched.

The reverse happens when a sufficient impact event happens upon the ice sheets and releases meltwater pulses sufficient to undo the prior change in albedo.

This discusses the proposed main impact for ending the last ice age, a site at Lake Nipigon, an 650 mile shoreline oval lake, 550 feet deep, north of Lake Superior.

639

This discusses a proposed impact site in British Columbia, responsible for creating the massive flood erosion events in the Pacific Northwest:

This discusses that not even Milankovich Cycles are sufficient to

http://geocosmicrex.com/global-change/iceage-shift/

While not an impact event that caused an ice age, this one is illustrative of the many impacts sites being discovered, and thus play a role in human development). This discusses the Burckle Crater 12,000 feet under the Indian Ocean, as possibly being responsible for the phenomenon described for Noah's Flood, and the massive mud flows observed by the archaeologists in Mesopotamia:

The paper shown on the 'cover', of the video discusses an impact in Iraq that likely destroyed Sumeria and the IVC.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is a video from the late 1970's (or 80's) with Leonard Nimoy discussing the scientific concern then that we were descending into a new ice age. This did not happen, of course, and now the concern is over warming.

As Carlson discusses in some of his talks, mentioned was the massive growth of the global glaciers during the centuries of the Little Ice Age, from which they have been receding for over 150 years now. Carlson shows 19th century woodcuts of European glaciers' near maximum extents and then compares these with photographs from today. Most of the modern recessions occurred before the 1970's and the bulk of the added CO2 BTW.

All of this was before scientists understood the thermohaline cycle (I believe) and it was incorrectly believed that Earth was no longer a shooting gallery for comets and asteroids.

One scientist understands part of the problem (or solution rather) is suggesting to dump a lot of soot onto a nascent expanding ice age ice cap. But, of course, this is an insane amount of soot needed, on a cataclysmic scale.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Carlson proposes that such as a dual (or multi-strike) strike phenomenon can initiate an Ice Age... The reverse happens when a sufficient impact event happens upon the ice sheets and releases meltwater pulses sufficient to undo the prior change in albedo.
Carlson seems to be on to something here. He presents a convincing case that there may be more asteroid and comet strikes than we're aware of, and that they could be the cause of abrupt climate change.

He talks about the abruptness of historical climate change episodes in the past. Gary Rondeau's Squash Practice blog made the same point. In a way it's almost comforting that rapid changes are not really new, because part of the panic about MMGW is the idea that it's happening more abruptly than anything that ever happened in the geological record. If the vast majority of life forms (including humanity) have survived past events of abrupt climate change caused be meteor impacts, then perhaps we'll make it through the current episode too.

I'm not convinced that Carlson has ruled out any of the other proposed causes for rapid climate change. Even with a short impulse like an asteroid adding a lot of energy at once, the energy accumulated through an imbalance between solar insolation and thermal radiation is potentially enormous. It's generally believed that a slow change in energy imbalance, accompanied by feedback effects, should be more than enough to drive changes in the climate.

Ellis's theory is that as CO2 is slowly depleted due to carbonate formation, eventually terrestrial vegetation either burns or dies off, causing enormous dust storms that change the albedo of the planet and reverse the climate change trend. I don't see how this can be ruled out by Carlson's theory.

Large volcanic events are another conventionally accepted cause of climate change. Enormous quantities of CO2, as well as vast quantities of particulates, can be belched into the atmosphere in a very short time. Following a well-placed volcanic eruption, one might expect effects on a similar scale as a small asteroid impact.

It seems plausible enough that the Milankovich cycles, as modest in impact as they are compared to asteroid strikes, volcanoes or planet-wide dust storms, nevertheless could pack enough punch to start a climate change cycle. If this is the case, the vast majority of energy from the transition would come from the sun, reinforced by positive feedbacks. Only a very minor part of the energy required for a climate phase transition, would come from the Milankovich effect.

And of course I don't see any reason to doubt that human carbon emissions could also be a trigger to abrupt climate change. A particularly dangerous aspect of the currently playing experiment, is that the new temperature range seems to be hotter than anything the planet has experienced for millions of years, since the current cycle of ice ages and balmy interglacial periods got started.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following 7 year old lecture at the bottom of the post is by geologist Dan Britt, who advances the argument that we should now be long into the next normal ice age but for MMGW which began many thousands of years ago with the launch of early Holocene agriculture such as rice production, domesticated livestock, and other human generated causes. The red line below is the Milankovitch Cycle predicted trendline.

644

645

Furthermore, he shows that Earth is in a very long term cooling trend, with concomitant wider short term extremes. And so MMGW has saved us from returning to a time of massive ice caps, and keeping beach front properties near the beaches.

642

Note the brief duration of the prior interglacial periods, which were warmer than our current one. And note, from the top graph how the temperature trend is getting cooler and with greater extreme swings, of which he claims the bulk is Milankovitch Cycle driven, ... till the early Holcene global warming deviation (thus the long peak on the right extreme of the graph below).

But, especially note the rapid temperature transitions, none of which are thought to be human caused. Today's hockey stick is but a blip.

643

Not discussed by Britt: the challenges then, are for contemporary humankind to regulate between too much CO2 and too little CO2, if we want to maintain our current shorelines that is. Also not discussed by Britt: .... is to prevent significant asteroid and comet impacts that act to flip the albedo regimes like a switch, the higher impact frequency of which is slowly dawning on the science community.

He discusses that the (literal) tectonic battle between China and India is what has placed Earth in its current (on a geological time scale), low CO2 regime, compared to the known previous 500 million years much higher levels. It is in this reduced level regime that makes CO2 levels more sensitive in its otherwise logarithmic response curve.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Also not discussed by Britt: .... is to prevent significant asteroid and comet impacts that act to flip the albedo regimes like a switch, the higher impact frequency of which is slowly dawning on the science community.
I would say on the contrary, that Britt is implicitly denying that asteroid and comet impacts are important, when he says that the Milankovitch cycles are the dominant driving factor of the climate.

But, here's a graph showing the Milankovitch insolation calculation, along with Vostok ice core temperature data. It's not so obvious to me, that Milankovitch is as all-important as Britt says.



But, especially note the rapid temperature transitions, none of which are thought to be human caused. Today's hockey stick is but a blip.
I'm not sure Britt would agree with this either. The CO2 hockey stick graph is not just a blip. The rise in CO2 because of agriculture is 20 ppm over 8000 years, which is 0.0025 ppm per year. Since 1850 we've gone from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, which is 135 ppm in 170 years. The recent rate of CO2 increase is about 2.5 ppm per year, or 1000 times faster than the pre-industrial rate of increase.

Also, the ice core data represents polar temperatures. As Britt discusses in the video, climate changes express themselves in the most extreme changes at the polar regions of the globe. Average air temperatures over the Arctic are now 4 degrees C above the 1979-2000 average, which is already half of the full swing in the above graph from the deepest glaciation to the warmest interglacial.

Starting at about 45:00, Britt says he's just floored that MMGW is a political discussion. Of course the planet is warming because of human actions, he says.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I would say on the contrary, that Britt is implicitly denying that asteroid and comet impacts are important, when he says that the Milankovitch cycles are the dominant driving factor of the climate.
Yes, he is likely of the old school that believes we are past the age of such impacts.
Of course the planet is warming because of human actions, he says.
Yes, I didn't say he didn't.

But you do agree that the Holocene is abnormally long right (hence the book title The Long Summer)? And that humans could not have caused such massive historical swings in climate right? Or, do you believe that humans, or perhaps saber-tooth tigers indeed did such?

The big problem is, that no matter how much kvetching the IPCC does, the data shows that the climate will change, and dramatically so, and we need to address what that means ... if we can't or wont understand all the factors. In fact, it seems to me that such people are the real Climate Change Deniers, and they have cleverly framed themselves otherwise.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
But you do agree that the Holocene is abnormally long right (hence the book title The Long Summer)?
Of course, and I agree that human agriculture and forestry is a contributing factor in lengthening the Holocene.

And that humans could not have caused such massive historical swings in climate right?
Right, not before 8000 BC; although it's possible that there was an advanced human civilization before that time, capable of effecting the climate.

no matter how much kvetching the IPCC does
IPCC "kvetching" is addressing climate change that could be happening, abruptly and very soon, because of industrial activity. What is it about that concern, that contradicts or negates the view that the climate could change anyhow, unpredictably, on its own? Although James Hansen argued that MMGW is sufficient to prevent any new ice age coming soon.
 
Now that is certainly true...
No doubt the oceans' thermohaline cycle was not understood at the time he said that.
… but it is also true that MMGW causes a dilution and diminution of the thermohaline cycle as the warmed ocean water is less likely to sink down to the depths.

The really good side here is that the ocean is becoming more receptive to absorbing the worlds CO2 if it can be fertilized at the surface. Such fertilization would lead to increased algae and fish (including food for humans). One way to ensure a steady nutrient supply would be to gather up the plastic garbage in the ocean and use it as floats for slow-release nutrient material. This needs research now!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Identical with the more recent theory (such as developed by Randall Carlson) that an impactor(s) advanced the destruction of the last ice age's North American ice sheets, it is now separately proposed that an impactor (or airburst objects) ended so-called "Snowball Earth".

Will we subsequently hear that Snowball Earth was formed, in the first place, by the nefarious activities of 'anti-humans' who were producing too much 'anti-CO2', aka OC2?

Some 2.2 billion years ago, an asteroid slammed into the Earth, leaving behind a massive, 43-mile-wide crater in what's now Western Australia, scientists announced Tuesday.
It's the world's oldest known impact site, the new study said, one that also may have changed Earth's climate: It occurred at a time that coincided with Earth’s recovery from an ice age known as "Snowball Earth," where most of Earth’s surface was covered with ice sheets up to 3 miles thick, according to a statement from Imperial College in London.
The impact left behind a scar on the land that's known as the Yarrabubba impact crater. "The age we've got for the Yarrabubba impact structure makes it the oldest impact structure on the planet," study co-author Chris Kirkland, a geologist at Australia's Curtin University, told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. ...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is an interesting discussion of the Carolina Bays, including some evidence of attempts to steer academic consensus away from the proper conclusion of a cataclysmic impact, and that it is impossible for such features to have been created by Uniformitarian processes.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Will we subsequently hear that Snowball Earth was formed, in the first place, by the nefarious activities of 'anti-humans' who were producing too much 'anti-CO2', aka OC2?
I'm having trouble understanding the logic behind this snarky comment. Are you trying to say that because natural or cosmic events can cause climate change, therefore it's impossible that human beings could do the same?

Worldwide CO2 emissions are estimated at 23 billion tonnes per year, and this has been going on for decades so far. That's about 100 times the average annual rate of emissions from volcanoes. 23,000 megatonnes of fossil fuel equivalent, is not so different from the energy released by a huge meteor impact. So, why is it so inconceivable that this level of activity could change the climate?

The following is an interesting discussion of the Carolina Bays, including some evidence of attempts to steer academic consensus away from the proper conclusion of a cataclysmic impact, and that it is impossible for such features to have been created by Uniformitarian processes.
If I'm understanding correctly, Carlson's theory is that a massive asteroid impact caused the Missoula flood event, and also threw off chunks of ice that fell back to earth and created the Carolina bays.

The mainstream view is that the Carolina bays can't be impact craters, because there is no remnant of meteorite fragments, or any of the other evidence normally found in such craters. Carlson's indirect "ice chunk" theory might be compatible with the lack of such evidence. So this seems to be a contribution that could possibly move the argument forward.

But, Douglas Johnson's theory that the bays were created by "the formation of siliciclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these depressions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes" still seems to be very popular. And there's some research indicating that the bays are between 60K and 140K years old, which would rule out any link to the Missoula flood.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I'm having trouble understanding the logic behind this snarky comment. Are you trying to say that because natural or cosmic events can cause climate change, therefore it's impossible that human beings could do the same?
The existence of anti-matter presupposes the existence of anti-humans and anti-CO2, no? (I was being facetious about OC2 being that, it's really '-CO2'.)
Worldwide CO2 emissions are estimated at 23 billion tonnes per year, and this has been going on for decades so far. That's about 100 times the average annual rate of emissions from volcanoes. 23,000 megatonnes of fossil fuel equivalent, is not so different from the energy released by a huge meteor impact. So, why is it so inconceivable that this level of activity could change the climate?
Here, you're making me suspicious that you are indeed a climate change denier.

If I'm understanding correctly, Carlson's theory is that a massive asteroid impact caused the Missoula flood event, and also threw off chunks of ice that fell back to earth and created the Carolina bays.
Yes, but it seems to be a multiple strike event, as happened recently to Jupiter and that there is evidence of happening across today's USA long ago. The elliptical alignments of the ~500,000 bays indicate at least two separated initiatory impacts, and there is indications of a third impact in mid-latitude British Columbia (causing the Missoula event).
But, Douglas Johnson's theory that the bays were created by "the formation of siliciclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these depressions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes" still seems to be very popular. And there's some research indicating that the bays are between 60K and 140K years old, which would rule out any link to the Missoula flood.
Just because a theory is popular doesn't mean it is correct. The Johnson theory is really 'Silly Clastic". Experiments to reproduce and confirm that produce irregular oblong shapes. Some of the bays are circular, and some overlap into others in a manner inconsistent with Silly Clasticism, and consistent with crater like formation..
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The Johnson theory is really 'Silly Clastic".
Just because you can make up a snarky pun doesn't make a theory wrong, either.

Here's a paper "Carolina Bays" by Peter Black (hosted at prof. Jerry Davis's curriculum website) that explains that as of 1999, an estimated 97% of the original Bays in South Carolina had been either destroyed or severely altered. Black says that as a result, the bulk of scientific effort at that time was dedicated to preservation efforts.

The site lists 15 different origin theories. It discusses the papers by Douglas Johnson and Raymond Kaczorowski that were mentioned by Carlson. In the process of rejecting Johnson's theory, RK said that the Bays were caused by poor drainage causing ponding.

http://online.sfsu.edu/jerry/geog810/1999/black.html

Theories of Origin: From Price, 1968
Spring Basins Toumey, 1848, pp. 143, 144)
Sand bar dams of drowned valleys (Glenn, 1895)
Depressions dammed by giant sand ripples (Glenn, 1895)
Craters of Meteor Swarm (Melton and Schriever, 1933)
Submarine scour by eddies, currents or underflow (Melton, 1934)
Segmentation of lagoons and formation of crescentic keys (Cooke, 1934). Original hollows at the foot of
marine terraces and between sand dunes (Cooke, 1954, p.195)
Lakes in sand elongated in direction of maximum wind velocity (Raisz, 1934)
Solution depressions, with wind-drift sand forming the rims (Johnson, 1936)
Solution depressions, with magnetic highs near bays due to redeposition of iron compounds leached from basins
Basins scoured out by confined gyroscopic eddies (Cooke, 1940, 1954)
Solution basins of artesian springs, with lee dunes. (Johnson, 1942)
Fish nests made by giant schools of fish waving their fins in unison over submarine artesian springs (Grant, 1945)
Eolian (deflation) blowouts, reported by Prouty (1952) as suggested by a "number of scientists", supported by Kaczorowski, 1977
Cometary fragments exploding above surface, their shock waves creating depressions (Eyton and Parkhurst, 1975)
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I wonder how long he pondered upond that?
To give a more complete view of Kaczorowski's analysis, here's a longer snippet from the above-quoted paper by Peter Black:

This study is considered the most comprehensive research ever done on the Carolina Bay issue. Kaczorowski literally traveled to the ends of the earth to conduct his study....
Kaczorowski focuses on the theories of terrestrial creation and the progressive steps that led to the formulation of his hypothesis and research. After describing the pertinent points and problems of each study and hypothesis, Kaczorowski introduces us to his hypothesis; Carolina Bays owe their morphology to wave and wind action. To prove his point, Kaczorowski set up research missions to Northern Alaska, the Texas Panhandle, and to Southern Chile. Each of these areas has oriented lakes similar to Carolina Bays although they do differ greatly from the Atlantic coastal plain in climate, vegetation, and geology. Kaczorowski goes into great detail describing the physics behind the wave and wind action, which orient them.
A model, consisting of a trough of fine sand was constructed to replicate wind and wave action. Powerful fans were used to simulate wind conditions at the same angle as the prevailing winds of the Atlantic coastal plain. The findings were that, " A transition from an initial circular or irregular shape to an elliptical or near elliptical shape was observed in four to six hours" (Kaczorowski, 88).
In regards to the process that initially formed the bays, Kaczorowski conducted a survey of low altitude aerial photos, and determined that Carolina Bays have indeed formed on all geomorphic surfaces, contradicting the findings of Thom (Kaczorowski, 96). Kaczorowski instead suggests that the only requirement for bay existence is poor drainage leading to ponding mechanisms. He believes, as Thom did, that water table perching by an impervious layer of humate could have facilitated ponding.
In conclusion, Kaczorowski offers seven statements summarizing his research. As far as bay genesis, Kaczorowski offers this conclusion, "Although the development of these depressions is highly variable, absolutely no evidence has been encountered that would support an extraterrestrial origin" (Kaczorowski 119).
Twenty-two years have passed since Kaczorowski’s work was published, and there have not been any studies conducted which test his conclusions or comply with his suggestions for further research. Likewise, there have not been any serious studies into the validity of the Eyton & Parkhurst study. The door is still wide open for continued research into a set of truly interesting landforms. Based upon my research into pertinent literature, I have several suggestions for future research. Intensive field work is needed over a vast area of bay distribution to perform comparative analysis within several realms. First, a study of comparative bay age is a priority. Newly discovered dating methods may be the key this type of study. If the bays appear to be of roughly the same age, then one may attribute more validity to extraterrestrial theories of origin. If they have a wide age distribution, a terrestrial genesis is more likely. More intensive magnetometer studies may have similar results. Lastly, a comprehensive study of bay orientation would be a key factor in determining a causal mechanism. It is unlikely that wind and wave action would create similar orientations within such a vast area, especially since prevailing winds differ within the distribution area. It is now possible, using geographic information systems, to obtain a complete set of Carolina Bay data from the USGS DLG set. If there is a way to collect and isolate this data, there should be a means to obtain the long axis of each bay, calculate the azimuth of each axis, and perform statistical analysis on a regional or a complete scale. This would take years to accomplish, but given the right study, the mystery of the Carolina Bays may be one more step to being uncovered.


Remarkably, the statistical analysis proposed by Black has now been carried out. The authors of the following study (Davias & Gilbride) used LIDAR data to identify ~25,000 Carolina Bay structures, and then they selected ~3500 of them for evaluation. They show how the bays vary systematically in both shape and orientation as a function of location. They argue that the Bays were indeed created by a cosmic impact; in their own words:

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011AM/webprogram/Handout/Paper192776/GSA-2011_Poster_192776_Davias-HQ.pdf

Evaluation of this data, when combined with similar data from other North American Carolina bays, may enable triangulation to a putative cosmic impact site implicit in a catastrophic mechanism for bay generation. The bays are clearly not primary or secondary impact craters, due to their shallow planforms (and numerous other facets). We instead speculate that they are surface defects (popped bubbles) embedded in a sheet of distal ejecta, distributed as a superheated slurry of pulverized silicate (sand) & water along an annulus surrounding the impact site.

And, here's another quote from Davias & Gilbride at Cosmic Tusk:

https://cosmictusk.com/davias-presents-to-geological-society-of-america-on-carolina-bays/

From the Carolina Sandhills eastward to the coast at Wilmington, a nearly continuous and occasionally thick (up to 10m) sheet of high purity quartz sand is blanketed across the intervening terraces and scarps. .... Oriented ovoid Carolina bay depressions have evolved in these sand sheets, seemingly without deforming or altering the antecedent strata and paleosols they rest upon. They are present in prodigious quantities and may represent diagnostic markers for these distinct sand deposits. In an attempt to identify a universal mechanism for the materialization of these sand sheets, we speculate on an aerial deposition, mobilized and delivered as a “rain” of pulverized distal ejecta emanating from a cosmic impact. The bay depressions may be artifacts of steam outgassing, frozen in time as the sand transited from liquefaction to lock-up, preserving an arrival vector in their orientation.
While I don't want to jump to any conclusions, this theory is the sort of thing that "you just can't make up". Popped bubbles of hot sand? Of course! What else could they be. (???) And, who are we to say?

The research was presented as a poster & a conference talk. It seems that Davias & Gilbride may have had trouble finding a peer reviewed journal to publish their results. See also:

http://cintos.org/Papers/GRL_Submission/GRL Submission overview.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258469741_Measuring_the_Carolina_Bays_Using_Archetype_Template_Overlays_on_the_Google_Earth_Virtual_Globe_Planform_Metrics_for_25000_Bays_Extracted_from_LiDAR_and_Satellite_Imagery
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Following the link from Cosmic Tusk to Davias's home page:

http://cintos.org

Gradualistic processes are considered by modern science to be responsible for the creation and evolution of the Carolina bay phenomenon. Given our LiDAR views of 50,000+ perfectly formed and aligned landforms, that approach seems silly. For a full explanation of our speculation as to the origin of the Carolina Bays, please see the Saginaw Manifold pages on Cintos.org, where we explore a cosmic impact into the Saginaw Bay area of Michigan at the time of the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, ~800,000 years ago.
A talk entitled “A Tale Of Two Craters: Coriolis-Aware Trajectory Analysis Correlates Two Pleistocene Impact Strewn Fields And Gives Michigan A Thumb” was presented at the GSA’s North-Central Section 2015 Meeting in Madison, WI. The abstract is linked above, and a PDF version of the talk is available from the GSA via the link HERE.
Pleistocene Epoch cosmic impacts have been implicated in the geomorphology of two enigmatic events. Remarkably, in both cases spirited debates remain unsettled after nearly 100 years of extensive research. Consensus opinion holds that the Australasian (AA) tektites are of terrestrial origin despite the failure to locate the putative crater, while a cosmic link to the Carolina bays is considered soundly falsified by the very same lack of a crater.
A challenging aspect of the hypothesis involves the lack of an identifiable impact structure. The conjecture suggests an extremely oblique - nearly tangential-impact, and that terrestrial material ejected from such an event would be distributed in a stylized manner. Our analysis correlates numerous proposed ejecta material emplacements - including the Carolina bays and the Goldsboro Ridge - to a cosmic impact event that struck the Laurentide ice shield at ~43°N, ~87°W. The proposed cratering impact, when combined with the scouring action of 7 full glacial ages, is seen producing the current-day Saginaw Bay Basin. We have followed the chronological constraints to a proposed date of ~787 ±5 thousand years ago.
 
Happy New Year everyone!

Nice to know that my state of Western Australia is in the news yet again, though the site is in a remote area where I have not travelled, though I have been to Meekatharra! I'll have to return to Sydney soon, so will have to try to catch up here - but yes, the evidence for a catastrophic YD event is building!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is perhaps the most concise and comprehensive distillation of Carlson's efforts, covering the connections between: esoteric religion and sacred geometry, and the reality of periodic [sic] global cataclysms relating to the ice ages and more.

There is a prior interview, but that is specifically on ancient ruins.

 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here's another video covering the mysterious disappearance of the Laurentide ice sheet, as discussed in Randall Carlson's video above.

 
Top