Dust on the Sea Floor

13 Nov 2020

Of interest to catastrophists one might assume. Ancient dust on the sea floor. However, once again the focus is on climate. rather than meteors or comets. Go to https://phys.org/news/2020-11-ancient-sea-floor-climate-history.html ... during the Late Glacial Maximum, around 20,000 years ago, and more, iron containing dust accumulated on the sea floor. Iron is said to fertilise marine phytoplankton. In this case in the South Pacific. It is an odd story if your read it through. Using sediment cores German researchers, some of the most avid of climate changers, claim the dust was traced back to a source in NW Argentina, in the shadow of the Andes. It was transported, they calim, across the South American continent, the Atlantic and Indian oceans, to settle in the South Pacific. The origin in the back slopes of the Andes is arrived at mainly as a result they only looked at terrestrial points of origin, ignoring space. This is exemplified as they also say that nowadays, dust from Australia, which is also a dry environment, predominantly feeds the South Pacifc sea bed, much as Sahara dust is said to seed the Brazilian rain forest [as well as the Atlantic sea bed]. You will note that the dust in the Ice Age is projected to travel in the opposite direction to what it does nowadays. How does that come about? Well, prevailing winds may have differed, perhaps, or the earth had reversed itself and was rotating in the opposiste direction. On the other hand, the iron laden dust may have had an origin in an iron rich cosmic body such as a comet, or a flux of meteors. Modelling is involved in the search for an origin of the dust.

At https://phys.org/news/2020-10-irregular-glacial-interglacial-climate-sta... ... another study focussed on climate and the Ice Ages. Here we are told  the periodicity of glacial and interglacial episodes may differ from the mainstream mantra. Interglacials, it seems, were much more common, rather than at 100,000 year intervals. It seems the Milankovitch model might be under attack. However, the focus may instead shift to 41,000 year shifts, or another variable. An important paper it would seem and a chink in the solidity of the Ice Age consensus theory.