Comments on: Puruogangri (2000)

By: TCO

TCO — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:41:09 +0000

CLearly the time scales of glacier formation/decay are an issue as well as moisture versus temp issues. It would be nice to see someone skethc the problem conceptually.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 11:37:23 +0000

The earth was in grip of …….?

If I took a survey of the Antarctic glaciers today, I would not extrapolate that to “the earth was in the grip of….”

Similarly the Permian deposits exposed south of Bermagui, NSW, OZ, would not lead one to conclude that “the earth was in the grip of….”.

Sunny daytine Los Angeles is, so frigid McMurdo is too.

By: John Cross

John Cross — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:17:33 +0000

It’s odd that Thompson didn’t mention Kilimanjaro in this context, as my recollection is that this also formed in the Holocene and would be subject to precession effects.

I don’t think it would. Kilimanjaro is too close to the equator so precession effects won’t be significant.

Steve: Could be. I thought that the precipitation in this region was monsoon-related, I’m pretty sure that the headwaters of the Nile are mostly fed by monsoon-related phenomena. If it was monsoon-related, wouldn’t it be affected by precession even if it was close to the equator if the monsoon was non-symmetric? I don’t know – just asking.
It sure seems interesting that Puruogangri should have formed in the warm Holocene Optimum. Quelccaya puzzles me as well: the core is dated only to ~400 AD or so. Does that mean that it formed in hte 1st millennium?