Minds in Ablation, Part One: Ice Cores and Ideology

Copyright © 1998, 1999 by Sean Mewhinney (df736@freenet.carleton.ca).

Ice Cores and Ideology

You can knock down one after another specific argument for believing Velikovsky's claims, but his followers just substitute other reasons for believing, or different scenarios. It becomes a habit of thought that they no longer question, or are even capable of questioning. But there is physical evidence which shows, as clearly as any evidence possibly could, not only that Velikovsky's specific scenario did not take place, but that any similar planet-juggling scenario involving the earth could not have happened within the past many thousands of years. That evidence consists of various kinds of paleoclimatic data, especially from ice cores.

I didn't pay much attention 20 years ago when R.G.A. Dolby proposed ice cores as a test of Velikovsky's theories. 1 But seven years later, Leroy Ellenberger took up the issue in his series, "Still Facing Many Problems," concluding that the evidence "presents a serious challenge" to Velikovsky's thesis. 2 This brought a response from Lynn Rose, who led off in his best nit-picking style, at Ellenberger's expense, by pointing up some derivative phrasing and a couple of slips in wording in Ellenberger's prose. He then offered several unconvincing excuses why evidence of Velikovsky's catastrophes might have removed itself from the ice cores, accused Ellenberger of gross misrepresentation and distortion, and generally impeached the reliability of ice-core research. 3 It was difficult to believe that these two men were talking about the same subject, so drastically different were the pictures they painted. I stopped in the middle of Rose's account, because I knew I would have to see the original sources for myself before I could decide whose version was closer to the truth -- not that I found the two equally credible, from previous experience, but I had to know, because the issue was obviously important. I read about 25 ice-core papers before I felt that I knew enough about the subject to judge who was closer to reality, then I finished reading Rose. By then I already knew that I was going to write on the subject myself.

The evidence itself is straightforward enough. Virtually every kind of analysis that you could think of asking for to test Velikovsky's theories has already been performed. There is no trace of the petroleum or meteoritic dust that Velikovsky said fell on the earth in great quantities, or of the manna that shrouded the planet in darkness for 40 years as it fell, feeding the Israelites, no layer of soot from worldwide conflagrations, no sulfates such as would be produced from the simultaneous eruption of thousands of volcanoes, no sign of any exchange of atmospheres with other planets in bubbles of ancient air trapped in the ice, no layer of salty, bubble-free ice from a giant wave. We didn't pick up any chlorine from Saturn or argon from Mars. We didn't lose any oxygen burning hydrogen from Saturn.

The best evidence, though, is in the oxygen and hydrogen isotopes of the ice itself. Water molecules composed of the heavier isotopes are more sluggish than their neighbors. They are somewhat slower to evaporate from the oceans, and they condense and fall to the ground more readily. There is a net atmospheric transport of water vapor from the tropics, where most evaporation takes place, to the higher latitudes. So water in the atmosphere becomes progressively more and more depleted in the heavier isotopes as it moves toward the higher latitudes and cools off. There is a very strong correlation between depletion in the heavier isotopes and colder temperatures, higher latitudes, higher elevation above sea level, and greater distance from the source of precipitation. The local correlation over Greenland and Antarctica is a little less than one part per thousand depletion in oxygen 18 for every degree Celsius fall in the temperature of precipitation. (See Fig. 1.) Any significant change in temperature, latitude, or elevation of the site, or in the distribution of land and sea, will affect the oxygen-isotope ratios of the ice. This means that any change in the earth's orbit, axis, inclination, speed of rotation, or sea levels will show up in a gross, obvious change in isotope ratios. Amazingly, after years of debate about ice cores, there are major figures in the Velikovskian movement so hermetically isolated that they are still not aware of this.

But others have heard the news, though they may not believe it. The ice-core evidence is flatly incompatible with Velikovskian-style planetary catastrophes. And so once critics had introduced it into the debate, those in the movement who give any thought to physical evidence, however dimly, realized that they had a problem to deal with -- the evidence must be discredited one way or another and incorporated into the disbelief system. Anyone can participate in this effort. The work of the ice-core researchers is already suspect in advance, of course: They are not working under the right "paradigm" -- i.e., they did not set out expecting to find positive evidence of planetary catastrophes, and are therefore presumed to be biased. In the course of their training they have been brainwashed with "uniformitarian" doctrines -- defined very broadly. They have vested career interests to protect. They may be careless, incompetent, or dishonest. But some more specific reasons must be found for rejecting their research, which can then be cited by adherents when the issue is raised by critics. Ideally, some way might be found of reinterpreting the results in a way that confirms a Velikovskian scenario, letting them have their cake and eat it too. The Velikovskian who contributes to this effort can expect approval and recognition from his peers.

Lynn Rose, who often likes to repeat Velikovsky's injunction to ask oneself, in the words of Seneca, "What part of this work is committed to us?", took a leading role. His writings on ice cores continued to appear in installments. 4 In his two- part "The Greenland Ice Cores," Rose takes an excursion through the ice-core literature. It was not undertaken to learn or to inform, only to cull passages which, lifted out of context and combined with Rose's insinuations, might seem to call into question the accuracy, reliability, and coverage of ice-core testing. For example, he pretends that the "brittle zones" of the ice cores -- hundreds of meters in length -- have never been analyzed, which is a grotesque falsehood. The reader gathers virtually nothing about the objectives of each study, the kinds of analysis performed, or the findings. It would be less perverse, and certainly less tedious to invent references outright and manufacture quotations out of thin air, than to so misuse, mangle, and misrepresent the words of these authors, as Rose has done. But after all, he was only telling his readers what they wanted to hear.

The details are covered in Part II of my "Ice Cores and Common Sense." I wrote it to give a clear introduction to the field of ice-core research, explain its relevance for Velikovskian claims about recent planetary catastrophes, and refute most of the sillier statements made about ice cores in the Velikovskian literature up to then. I was not naive enough to think that there would be mass defections, but I hoped it was possible to reach at least some of the people who read Velikovskian journals with reason, when the evidence was so concrete and unequivocal. The manuscript was ignored by Kronos, ignored by David Talbott at Aeon, circulated in pamphlet form, and later published in Catastrophism and Ancient History. 5 It had no more impact on the movement than a minor speed bump on rush-hour traffic. The only honest, rational response from a Velikovskian was made privately, in a letter to Henry Bauer from Ian Johnson, who said the ice cores had finally convinced him, and referred to his years of involvement in the movement as "two decades of cheap thrills."

The ice cores called a lot of bluffs. As Dolby observed,

It is always possible to find some way of questioning the scientific presuppositions of any conclusions that are drawn into the discussion of Velikovsky's ideas. If it turns out that the only way to avoid regarding it [information about ice cores] as a falsification is to make new ad hoc and implausible assumptions, then this will reveal something about the difficulties of the theory... 6

It would also reveal whether the Velikovskians were serious or not. Well, the results are now in: they are still bluffing.

Rose's "The Fracture Zones in Deep Polar Ice Cores" was published in Aeon after my "Common Sense" came out. 7 The entire paper seems to have been written in a mental fog. Rose claims that the brittle zones lie in ice formed between 2700 and 3500 years ago, and sees that as a confirmation of Worlds in Collision, but he fails to give a coherent causal explanation. I may find time to say something about this paper later, but it does not seem to have aroused much interest among Velikovskians at the time, and is largely forgotten today.

A New Champion

In the meantime, a new champion has come along to tackle the ice cores and make the world safe for silliness -- Charles Ginenthal. He has been a prolific writer on a wide variety of topics in physical science -- "The Origin of Craters on the Moon...," "Proof of a Celestial Counterforce to Gravity," "Comparing Magnetic Fields: Neptune and Uranus," "Is Space a Superconducting Medium?," "The Nature of Venus' Heat," "Dark Matter," "The Flood," The Extinction of the Mammoth, and more. He publishes them in his own journal, The Velikovskian (they're listed on its web page), or as books. Other Velikovskians seem impressed with his work. Some even call him a genius. He seems prepared to play a major role in the complete reordering of scientific knowledge.

His "Ice Core Evidence," published in The Velikovskian and posted on the web 8, is frequently touted by Velikovskians in their encounters with skeptics. It claims not only to dispose of the arguments raised by critics, but to pull the rabbit out of the hat and find proof that Velikovsky was right in the ice itself. It's bristling with personal taunts and challenges, and the level of distortion is so wild, it makes even Lynn Rose look tame. When I received a copy of it on floppy disk and briefly scanned it, I found it so morbidly depressing that I laid it aside without looking at it again for several months.

When I finally decided to answer it, it was not with the hope of dissuading Velikovskians from their beliefs. The prospects for doing so are essentially nil. The most one can hope for is to temporarily cause them some embarrassment. And if one could do so, they are the sort of people who would probably only gravitate to some other equally silly ideological movement. Nevertheless, the effort may be worthwhile for other reasons, one of which is intellectual curiosity. The science itself is interesting, and there are few research problems more important than trying to understand the workings of the climate system. There is the opportunity to put some information on record for those who seriously want to be informed. And there is the possibility of learning something about the cognitive processes involved in maintaining and elaborating individual and collective belief systems from a case study.

Ginenthal's position is that the ice-core researchers haven't got a clue what they are doing, that they don't understand even the most basic relationships of the parameters they are measuring, that they fake their hopelessly corrupted data. How does he intend to show this? One can get some idea from looking at his references. There is the expected Velikovskian literature, including four of his own works, published or threatened, a couple of creation-science tracts, a couple of other pseudoscientific works, three encyclopedia articles, two newspaper or magazine articles, a phone call to a friend, then we get to the science. There are about 30 titles, including a couple of popular science books, most of which could be classed as meteorology or paleoclimatology. But only half a dozen of these are glaciology, and only three of them deal with ice cores. And some of the titles are seriously out of date. So we see that Ginenthal is going to use other kinds of climate studies to attack the ice-core researchers, without paying much attention to what they actually say. You know he's going to be fuzzy on the details. But it's just as well that he doesn't read the ice-core literature. It didn't help Lynn Rose. The more they read, the more they distort. The problem is not that the learning curve is so flat; the problem is that the slope is negative.

Ice Ages and Isotopes

"...Ginenthal interprets scientific papers just as he likes, not giving any penny to the proposed facts. This I would call not citation but fantasy."

-- Gunnar Ries 9

For starters, Ginenthal doesn't accept that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are over 3500 years old. He has a complicated, multipart argument to reach this point, but once you get there, all the negative evidence against Velikovsky disappears at one stroke. So he leads off with an attack on the chronology, not just of ice cores, but of several other major, linked paleoclimatic data sets. It's an incoherent attack, and it's hard to see how anyone could take it seriously.

Most of his attention is focused on three long oxygen-isotope records: the SPECMAP (Spectral Mapping group) marine sediment-core record, the Vostok ice-core record from Antarctica, and the Devil's Hole calcite record from a fissure in the Great Basin of the southwestern U.S. Each of these three cores reflects climatic conditions in a different locale. Each is linked to global climatic changes, though by different mechanisms. And in spite of regional differences, each reflects broad global trends. But they are not synchronized. Peaks and troughs in the other two records lag behind the new and more accurately dated Devil's Hole record by thousands of years. What is more, trends in the Devil's Hole record do not show the expected effects of fluctuations in insolation at high latitudes, widely believed to be the driving force in climatic change, calling into question the Milankovitch theory.

In a disjointed summation, Ginenthal describes the situation this way: "What we have here are three dating methods, measuring oxygen-16 and oxygen-18, which contradict each other: one in ice layers in Greenland, one in an oceanic deep sea core and one in calcite layers in Nevada..." 10 This makes a hash of it. Not one of these cores is dated with oxygen isotopes. Rather, isotope ratios are an indicator of climate. Vostok is in Antarctica, not Greenland. It is dated by ice-flow calculations, not counting annual layers, and no great accuracy was claimed for the Vostok chronology. Even in Greenland, annual counting is not possible over the long stretches of time covered by these cores. The Devil's Hole record was dated by isotopes of uranium, thorium, and more recently, protactinium. The marine record is dated by a combination of direct and indirect methods. For the last 40,000 to 50,000 years, the sediments are radiocarbon-dated. Geomagnetic reversals, radiometrically dated in terrestrial rocks, provide fixed control points on the chronology, but they are widely spaced -- the most recent reversal took place about 780,000 years ago.

The position that Ginenthal seems to be trying to articulate is that since there are discrepancies between these different chronologies, we should chuck 'em all out, in favor of Immanuel Velikovsky's oracular revelations. But he is not consistent, because he is more interested in attacking the Milankovitch theory than ice cores. To a Velikovskian, mentioning the word "Milankovitch" is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, because the theory is based on the assumption that the earth's orbit has changed only very slightly and gradually for millions of years.

According to Ginenthal, the ice sheets are only 3500 years old, not hundreds of thousands of years, and they were built up to a great depth in the course of only a few months. The oceans, in his imagination, were so agitated by the flux and reflux of tsunamis that their sediments were stirred up and did not settle for months. In defiance of observation, Ginenthal is on record that ocean sediments were resorted -- "heaviest on the bottom, lightest on the top." 11 So these three oxygen-isotope curves should bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other.

Everyone who has looked at these three isotope curves has remarked on the close resemblance between them -- both supporters and opponents of the Milankovitch theory. (See Figs. 2a and 2b.) Winograd and his colleagues write, "major features of the DH-11 (or Vostok) record appear to closely mimic the major features in the marine record..." 12 Shackleton states that "Almost every detail in the SPECMAP stacked delta18O record can be recognized in this precisely dated [Devil's Hole] core." 13 Imbrie, another Milankovitch proponent, notes, "The general resemblance of the Devils Hole delta18O record to that of the ocean is striking. Indeed, the coherency is so high that it is tempting to overlook how different the physics underlying each record must be and jump to the conclusion that they are in fact synchronous." 14 One would expect Ginenthal to deny this resemblance. Indeed, near the end of Part IX, he says that if the isotopes truly reflect climate, "the oxygen- 16 and oxygen-18 layering of the ice cores should be exactly correlated with that of Devil's Hole, which it is not." Yet strangely, he has reversed himself. In e-mail messages he has called the Devil's Hole core "the best climate archive of the past half million years." 15 To my amazement, he has emphasized that it "was found to correlate with Vostock [sic] core linearly which is 114 degrees away from it [in latitude] by 92 percent and with SPECMAP by 86 percent." 16 A correlation is not a percentage, but never mind. Imbrie et al. give the Devil's Hole/SPECMAP correlation as .85, "adjust[ing] the ages in one curve to give the best match with... the other." 17 Ginenthal vehemently insists that the Devil's Hole curve is a global record. 18 That being the case, what miracle of divine providence accounts for its close similarity to the other two oxygen isotope curves? This is completely irrational, and we could just stop looking at this silly farce right here. No further refutation is necessary. But let us continue.

There is a large body of evidence supporting the Milankovitch theory, but most of it is statistical. No long, continuous series of climatic data has been dated with sufficient accuracy to conclusively determine the phase relationships between global warming and cooling trends, and the calculated peaks and troughs in insolation. So scientists have analyzed the data for dominant periodicities in fluctuations of climate. They have found that the dominant periodicities closely resemble those expected from variations in the inclination, eccentricity, and precession of the earth's orbit. Now Isaac Winograd and his colleagues at the U.S. Geological Survey have a well-dated half-million-year-long record from Devil's Hole, and it leads the marine and ice-core records, as well as the insolation curve. The feature most often compared in the curves is the so-called termination II, or warming at the end of the next to last glaciation. The Devil's Hole core gives a date of about 147,000 years to this event, while the SPECMAP core assigns a date of 130,000 years. Over most of the rest of their combined length, the fit is considerably better.

The isotope signal in the marine record reflects mainly the volume of water withdrawn from the oceans and locked up in glacial ice sheets, while the signal in ice cores and Devil's Hole groundwater reflects mainly the temperature of local precipitation. It takes a long time for massive ice sheets to melt, so the marine isotope record should lag behind the other two, if not by so many thousands of years. It has generally been assumed that times of greatest ice volume must be nearly, if not exactly coincident with times of greatest cold. Until recently, I would have said that most likely the records are essentially synchronous, and the discrepancy is probably to be explained by some systematic error in the series of Devil's Hole dates. But new, even more precise AMS protactinium dates have confirmed not only the Devil's Hole dates, but the timing of a high sea-level stand recorded in Barbados coral at around 127,000 years ago, supporting the SPECMAP chronology. 19 Both sets of dates were obtained with the same method, and it is consistent with earlier uranium-thorium dates. And another calcite core from Jewel Cave, South Dakota, yields a date of about 130,000 years ago for Termination II -- "pretty much nailed exactly where the ocean-core people put it." 20 The fault is not in the dating methods. Whatever the fate of the Milankovitch theory, it now seems evident that the differences in timing are real, and that they must be explained by differences in the response to global climate shifts in different regions or at different latitudes. It is already known that climate in the Great Basin was out of phase in one respect -- while climate over most of the rest of the world was at its driest in late glacial times, the southwestern U.S. experienced heavier rainfall than today (as will be discussed in the section on pluvials).

It is not enough just to say that insolation forces climate change, or even that insolation at a given latitude, or in a given season, is the effective agent of change. The Milankovitch theory may turn out not to be an all or nothing proposition. It may be that a decrease in insolation is more effective at inducing cooling than an increase is at inducing warming. It may be that the sensitivity of climate to solar forcing depends on how far glaciation has advanced. Or it may be that the most sensitive point in the climate system shifts from one latitude or one hemisphere to another at different stages in a glacial cycle.

No clear solution to the puzzle is yet in sight, but scientists are debating the issue rationally on the evidence. However it turns out, there is no aid or comfort from Devil's Hole for diehard Velikovskians. Velikovsky's claims -- and Ginenthal's with them -- fall, regardless of whether the Milankovitch theory stands or falls. Velikovskians seem to expect scientists to predict all the features of complex systems from first principles. Whenever they find something unexpected, the Velikovskians cry "anomaly -- wrong paradigm," and pretend they could do better. But Velikovskians are very tolerant of basic contradictions in each other's logic.

All three isotope curves show the same basic pattern -- some in finer detail, some with longer coverage. Over the course of a glacial cycle, there is gradually deepening cooling, followed by rapid warming. Superimposed on this is a series of short-term sawtooth fluctuations. The maximum range of climatic variation, from the depth of glaciation to the height of interglacial warmth, has been remarkably constant over the last two million years. The last few glacial cycles have a period of around 100,000 years. This is the pattern that any theory of climate change has to explain. The Vostok ice core now extends over four glacial cycles, or nearly 400,000 years, though not all of this has yet been published. The two new Summit ice cores from central Greenland cover two complete glacial cycles, over a good quarter of a million years, well above the depths of any folding or other possible disturbance. Annual layers in these two ice cores have been counted back to the end of the last glaciation some eleven and a half thousand years ago. The longest Devil's Hole core covers half a million years, from around 60,000 to 566,000 years ago. The marine record spans millions of years.

The climate machine is rather like a Chinese puzzle, with its intricately interlinked pieces. Push on one piece, and another moves. There are myriad positive and negative feedback loops between the components of the system -- biomass, carbon dioxide, clouds, dust, the geothermal heat flux, meltwater, methane, ocean currents, ocean nutrients, pack ice, salinity, sea level, snowfall, water vapor, wind -- with long- or short-term lags varying by orders of magnitude. Some of these linkages are obvious, and some are very poorly understood. Any theory of climate change must take into account not only external influences, but the internal dynamics of the climate system.

Velikovskian planetary encounters could at best explain abrupt transitions between different climatic states at irregular intervals, with a separate deus ex machina required for each event. They could not explain the observed quasi-regular 100,000-year periodicity of glacial cycles. They could not account for the gradual onset of increasing cold in each cycle, or the constant, relatively narrow amplitude of variation in temperature. A little further from the sun, and the earth would experience runaway glaciation -- the oceans would freeze over completely. Forget about the fantasy of earth as a companion of Saturn. And the sheer number of glacial cycles requires a ridiculous number of planetary encounters. How is it that over millions of years, none of these celestial encounters flung the earth completely out of the solar system? Rather than explain the phenomena, Velikovskians spend most of their time trying to explain them away.

Ginenthal wants to find as many ways as possible in which the records may be said to disagree. He uses a review article on two carbon-isotope studies in coral to take an oblique swipe at dendrochronology. Ginenthal's discussion 21 follows in its entirety, with my comments interspersed:

There is another method of dating the past: carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratios in the annual growth bands of corals.

The coral is dated by simply counting the annual growth bands. Only one piece of coral was used in each study, in each case spanning about 200 years. So there is no cross-matching, and carbon-14 has nothing to do with the dating.

However, pre-1950, when atomic bomb tests produced additional carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it was found that coral ring and tree ring data disagreed substantially with one another.

That is, the isotope ratios do not follow the same trends. There is no good reason why they should. Near the poles, because of its greater density, cold seawater sinks to the ocean floor. Following tortuous bottom currents, it wells up to the surface about a thousand years later in the tropics. Cold water absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and warm water releases it. Cosmic rays continually replenish the supply of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, where it is rapidly mixed, but the "old" water rising to the surface in the tropics is depleted in this isotope. Surface water is affected by exchange with the atmosphere, but also by older water mixing from below. Carbon concentrations, and carbon isotope ratios, are much more heterogeneous in the oceans than in the atmosphere.

Even coral ring carbon ratios from close contact areas, such as Bermuda and the Florida Keys, differ substantially with each other.

One of these studies used coral from Bermuda; the other from the Florida Keys. In this sentence Ginenthal calls them "close contact areas" and questions why they should differ. Actually they are about a thousand miles apart -- one in the open ocean, the other near the coast. A few sentences later, he calls them "separate areas" "hundreds of miles apart."

It has been suggested that deep sea, non-atmospheric upwelling of deep ocean water could account for these discrepancies. However, there is no upwelling of deep ocean water at either Bermuda or the Florida Keys.

Here Ginenthal cites the review article in Open Earth no. 3 (April, 1979), p. 30. He is wrong. Druffel and Linick, the authors of the Florida Keys study, state that "Upwelling is non-existent in this area." 22 But Nozaki et al. state that there is upwelling at Bermuda, although they describe the "exchange rate with deep water in this region" as "relatively small," 23 and they conclude that before 1900 there may have been "enhanced local upwelling" or "increased vertical diffusion." 24 So we see that gaseous diffusion between different depths also influences carbon isotope ratios at the surface. Druffel and Linick also point out that "Diffusion of older waters from intermediate depths, with an apparent age of approximately 600 to 900 years, dilutes the radiocarbon levels in the ocean's surface layer." 25 They also mention that North Equatorial Current water, which is subject to upwelling, enters the Gulf Stream system which bathes the Florida Keys. 26 So not only is there upwelling at one of these two sites, there are other mechanisms which deliver old carbon to surface water, which Ginenthal disregards.

Researchers assumed that there was local upwelling in Bermuda, but the Florida Keys coral showed the same disconfirmation of tree rings as that found in Bermuda, starting at the same time (1900) and going back in time.

It is Ginenthal who assumed that there is no local upwelling at Bermuda. He is contradicted by the sources. Ginenthal is referring to the carbon-14 dendrochronological calibration curve. No disconfirmation is implied by the facts, and this sentence is a complete non sequitur.

These measurements were based on carbon-14 to carbon-12 and carbon-13 to carbon-12 measurements, the same ones used to date tree rings.

Wiggles in the calibration curve have been used to confirm cross-matching of tree ring sequences by separately measuring the carbon-14 in each successive growth ring.

Therefore, the tree-ring chronology often touted as support for understanding the past is contradicted by coral ring measurements.

A completely irrational conclusion arrived at by massive confusion and misstatement of fact. Warning: there will be no improvement as we continue. He has no lucid intervals. It's going to be rather like one of those Mr. Magoo episodes.


1. R.G.A. Dolby, "On the Possibility that Ice Cap Cores May Form an Empirical Test of Some of Velikovsky's Ideas," Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review Vol. II, no. 2 (Dec., 1977), p. 31.

2. C. Leroy Ellenberger, "Still Facing Many Problems (Part I)," Kronos Vol. X, no. 1 (Fall, 1984), pp. 87-102.

3. Lynn E. Rose, "Some Preliminary Remarks about Ice Cores," Kronos Vol. XII, no. 2 (Winter, 1987), pp. 43-54, and "The Greenland Ice Cores" (first part) on pp. 55-68 of the same issue.

4. Rose, "The Greenland Ice Cores" (second part), Kronos Vol. XII, no. 2 (Spring, 1987), pp. 49-58; "The Milankovitch Theory of the Ice Ages," on pp. 59-72 of the same issue.

5. Sean Mewhinney, "Ice Cores and Common Sense (Part I)," Catastrophism and Ancient History Vol. XII, no. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 5-33; "Ice Cores and Common Sense (Part II)," in Ibid., Vol. XII, no. 2 (July, 1990), pp. 117-146; Corrigenda to Part II in Vol. XIII, no. 2 (July, 1991), pp. 150-151.

6. Dolby, op. cit., loc. cit.

7. Rose, "The Fracture Zones in Deep Polar Ice Cores," Aeon Vol. 3, no. 1 (Nov., 1992), pp. 55-71.

8. Charles Ginenthal, "Ice Core Evidence," The Velikovskian Vol. II, no. 4, and online at http://www.bearfabrique.org/floods/ice.html.

9. Gunnar Ries, e-mail message to C. Leroy Ellenberger, quoted by Ellenberger in a post dated November 11, 1997. An independent assessment from a geology student, based on an examination of different writings, which fully concurs with my own.

10. Ginenthal, "Ice Core Evidence," Part II.

11. Ginenthal, "The Settling of Sea-Floor Sediments," Kronos Vol. XI, no. 2 (Winter, 1986), p. 94.

12. Isaac J. Winograd, Tyler B. Coplen, Jurate M. Landwehr, Alan C. Riggs, Kenneth R. Ludwig, Barney J. Szabo, Peter T. Kolesar, & Kinga M. Revesz, "Continuous 500,000-Year Climate Record from Vein Calcite in Devils Hole, Nevada," Science Vol. 258 (Oct. 9, 1992), p. 257.

13. N. J. Shackleton, "Last Interglacial in Devils Hole," Nature Vol. 362 (April 15, 1993), p. 596.

14. J. Imbrie, A. C. Mix, and D. G. Martinson, "Milankovitch Theory Viewed from Devils Hole," Nature Vol. 363 (June 10, 1993), p. 531.

15. Charles Ginenthal, e-mail message to Robert Bass, July 28, 1997, forwarded by Bass the next day.

16. Ginenthal, e-mail to Robert Bass, forwarded August 8, 1997 by Bass.

17. J. Imbrie et al., op. cit., loc. cit. The Devils Hole-Vostok correlation, with no adjustment to the original Vostok time scale, is reported by Thomas J. Crowley, "Potential Reconciliation of Devils Hole and Deep-Sea Pleistocene Chronologies," Paleoceanography Vol. 9, no. 1 (Feb., 1994), p. 3.

18. Ginenthal, e-mail to Bass, forwarded August 6, 1997 by Bass.

19. Richard A. Kerr, "Second Clock Supports Orbital Pacing of the Ice Ages," Science Vol. 276 (May 2, 1997), pp. 680-681; R. Lawrence Edwards, H. Cheng, M. T. Murrell, and S. J. Goldstein, "Protactinium-231 Dating of Carbonates by Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry: Implications for Quaternary Climate Change," in the same issue of Science, pp. 782-786.

20. Derek C. Ford, quoted by Kerr, op. cit., p. 681. The paper has been submitted to Geology.

21. Ginenthal, "Ice Core Evidence," Part III.

22. Ellen M. Druffel and Timothy W. Linick, "Radiocarbon in Annual Coral Rings of Florida," Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 5, no. 11 (November, 1978), p. 913.

23. Y. Nozacki, D. M. Rye, K. K. Turekian, and R. E. Dodge, "A 200-Year Record of Carbon-13 and Carbon-14 Variations in a Bermuda Coral," Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 5, no. 10 (October, 1978), p. 827.

24. Ibid., op. cit., p. 828.

25. Druffel and Linick, op. cit., p. 914.

26. Ibid., op. cit., p. 915.

Back to Minds in Ablation index page.
Back to my catastrophism page.
Back to my interests.
Back to my home page.
Search my pages.

Last modified by pib on August 18, 2004.