Ice Core Evidence - Dispelling Arguments Against Immanuel Velikovsky’s Theories Based On Greenland Ice Cores

ICE CORE EVIDENCE

Dispelling Arguments Against Immanuel Velikovsky’s Theories Based On Greenland Ice Cores

COPYRIGHT

Copyright © 2015 Charles Ginenthal.

ISBN 978-1-329-74029-7

All rights reserved.  Other than as permitted under the Fair Use section of the United States copyright act of 1976, no part of this publication shall be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior written permission of the author. 

Quoting of this work must be attributed to this book, and not in a manner which would indicate any sort of endorsement.  No derivative works are permitted without express permission of the author.

Part I, The problem, as presented by Ellenberger and others.

The debate over ice core data has spanned many years. I have reexamined the record and analyzed the evidence in terms of Velikovsky's scenario. What I have found is that his critics, who have raised this ice core evidence, have based their objections on uniformitarian concepts and have ignored

Velikovsky's scenario. In reality, the data supports Velikovsky's catastrophic scenario and contradicts the uniformitarian interpretation completely.

In 1977, R. G. A. Dolby sent an article to the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review (SISR), submitting the view that, if Velikovsky's Venus catastrophe had occurred, then volcanic and cometary materials should appear visible at the appropriate depth in the cores recently collected from

Greenland and Antarctica.[1]

C. Leroy Ellenberger picked up this suggestion and presented the case against Velikovsky's catastrophic scenario in the Fall, 1984, issue of KRONOS. In this piece, Ellenberger explained that snow falling off the Greenland glacier would contain different amounts of oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 because of seasonal variations in temperature. Ice formed from summer snowfalls would be enriched by the heavier oxygen-18 isotope, whereas ice formed from winter snow would be enriched by the lighter oxygen-16 isotope.[2]

He also explained how other signals in the ice could be used to determine the validity of Velikovsky's scenario: 

As a test of Velikovsky's scenario of historical catastrophes,    the initial expectation was that the ice would preserve a series    of conspicuous dust layers of cometary origin at the proper    level. Such dust layers are not in evidence, but other signs of    catastrophism could take the place of the missing dust.

Extreme acidity peaks are produced by major volcanic    eruptions, which inject volcanic acid gases into the    stratosphere. These gases travel to high latitudes, being    converted to acid en route, and are incorporated in the ice    through snowfall. This deposition can be detected either as    elevated, specific conductivities measured on melted ice samples    or as elevated acidities revealed by an electric current through    the solid ice. Every major, known, historically-dated eruption    since AD 536 is attested [to] in Greenland ice cores at the    correct level....If, as Velikovsky repeatedly stated, all    volcanoes vomit[ed] lava at the time of the Exodus..., then    unequivocal evidence for such activity would be expected to be    found in the Greenland ice cores, but it is not. Volcanic acid    fallout in Greenland identified with ancient eruptions in the    Velikovskian time frame is comparable in amount to that    associated with single, recent volcanic eruptions. This is not    what is expected if catastrophes of the magnitude envisioned by    Velikovsky actually happened. In fact, according to the    Greenland ice cores, major eruptions have been four times more    frequent in the past 2000 years....[3] (Emphasis added.)

In the January and July, 1990, issues of Catastrophism and Ancient History (CAH), Sean Mewhinney analyzed both viewpoints and attacked Lynn E. Rose, Bernard Newgrosh, Alfred De Grazia, Clark Whelton and me for, among other things, supposedly ignoring the accuracy and strength of the ice core evidence. Mewhinney also claimed that oxygen-16 and oxygen-18 dominate yearly layers in the ice cores and presented the view that this evidence clearly denied Velikovsky's catastrophic scenario. He also pointed to dust and hydrocarbons missing from the appropriate depths in the ice cores and the weakness or missing signals from volcanic acid at these same depths.

Ever since publishing Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky, printed in late August, 1990, and distributed in October of that same year, I have stated my belief that the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica were created recently--a belief based on information from ancient maps and the discoveries made by Arlington Mallery and Charles H. Hapgood.[4] I believe that the accuracy of these ancient maps, as confirmed by professional cartographers and by seismic studies carried out by professional seismologists, proves that the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica cannot be as old as Mewhinney and Ellenberger indicate.

Furthermore, I entirely disagree with Dolby, Ellenberger and

Mewhinney that the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica were built up gradually, prior to Velikovsky's Venus catastrophe, 3,500 years ago. Velikovsky claimed that the icecaps were built up suddenly and catastrophically. Venusian planetary dust and volcanic acid, and Earth dust (distributed by hurricanes with stupendous snowfalls), precipitated over these regions. This is based on what Velikovsky actually wrote. Sea levels fell 20 feet.

[1] R. G. A. Dolby, Letter to the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review II: 2 (1977): 31.

[2] C. Leroy Ellenberger (A), "Still Facing Many Problems (Part

I)," KRONOS X: 1 (Fall, 1984): 97.

[3] Ibid., pp. 98-99.

[4] Charles Ginenthal (A), Carl Sagan and Immanuel