Re: KRS - Possible news to come

From: I E Johansson (ingerxjohanssonx_at_telia.com)
Date: 09/20/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:30:47 GMT

Daryl,
unfortunatly you made a miscalculation. Since it's a long mathematical
formula as well as many different factors involved I will not present it
here. I take it from the result you reached that you have done same mistake
as most of our honourable geologist did here in Sweden up to 1990's. You
have started from wrong position.
You can't start with today's waterlevels and GPS readings, they will have to
end up on the right side for each point as a result of the long calculation!
What you need to do is starting with the figure for same point given you
know the exact or almost exact period when the ice-coat withdraw from the
point in question and that you have the figure for the highest waterlevel
close by at any time after the Ice melted.

The landrise is a retarding movement. Unfortunatly that's not all. Given the
different soils under ground today for same points you have to have a
coresample down to stoneground and you will have to study and analyse each
sedimentlayer if any by itself. observe you can't calculate for longer
distances than 500 meters if you are to arrive in correct figures for
anytime in between when the ice had melted at the given point and today.

When you have all figures, you will have to reach to a plausible curve for
that exact point given the figures.
You also need to start as I say not from today's figures but from the 'old'
figures.
When you have done that you can interpolate in the curves for each point you
study. To do that you need to have the reading figures for the last 100
years. Which isn't easy to get in NA I know that. On top of it all you will
have to mark each of the many hundreds/thousand checkingpoints on a 3d-map
with readings for year A, B, C on different(!) maps. If you can write a
program which show the changes as they happens you better do that to check
that you end up where you are today.

When you do such a study you will find that your assumptions aren't correct
but that it's due to the 'custom' of counting from today and backwards
instead of from what it was and forwards. Remember that you are dealing with
a retarding movement which aren't the same even inside the 500x500 or
1000x1000 meter area you have around each studied point/site/local or what
you will call it.

Inger E

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:c70365ef.0409181459.673ce458@posting.google.com...
> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<qtqik0p0r7a266kito8m8ctmgmm8vvb3db@4ax.com>...
> > On 14 Sep 2004 18:15:12 -0700, icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl Krupa)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"I E Johansson" <ingerxjohanssonx@telia.com> wrote in message
news:<bHv1d.3102$d5.24226@newsb.telia.net>...
>
> <SNIP>
> > >> Professional geologist have identified the
> > >> 'composition'/content of thE graywake to a specific area
> > >> not to a specific now existing rock.
> > >> The area correspond to the Ice Coat's withdrawel and
> > >> the Ice-floods changes
> > >> during the last 5000 years melting.
> > >
> > > Inger E:
> > >
> > > Thank you for the clues as to the nature of your Great Lake Iowa.
> > > But you were not very specific about the location.
> > > There was no glacial melting in the Minnesota area,
> >
> > Then what created the glacial moraine in the Kensington region?
>
> > > ... or anywhere
> > >in North America south of Baffin Island and west of the Rockies,
> > >and there's not greywacke in the Rockies,
> > >so I will presume that the KRS came from the Arctic.
> > > Is that correct?
>
> I was referring, of course, to I's ref. to the period
> "during the last 5000 years melting".
> The glacial moraines in "the Kensington area" were created
> at different times, but all before about 14,000 years ago,
> when the last glacial ice in the area melted away.
> By 5,000 years ago there was no more glacial ice
> south of Baffin Island or east of the Rockies.
>
> > Reiersgord has suggested that it came from
> > the Thompson Formation
>
> A.k.a. "Thomson Formation", correlative with the Virginia Formation
> further west and south, both formations being part of the
> Early Proterozoic Animikie Group.
> But why the Thompson/Thomson Formation?
> Why not the Virginia Formation? It has the same general sort of
> graywacke as the Thomson Formation, and is more likely up-ice than
> the Thomson Formation, which only appears in northern Carlton County,
> near Duluth at the western end of Lake Superior.
> And I thought that the KRS graywacke was supposed to be older,
> from the Late Archaean, i.e the age of bedrock that underlies
> part of Douglas County.
>
> Generalised bedrock geology of Minnesota:
>
> http://www.winona.edu/geology/MRW/mrwimages/bdrkmp.gif
>
> General ages of bedrock:
>
> http://www.winona.edu/geology/MRW/mrwimages/geoterranes1.gif
>
> Derivation of glacial deposits:
>
> http://www.winona.edu/geology/MRW/mrwimages/geoterrain.gif
>
> Detailed geology:
>
> http://www.duluthstreams.org/explore/mn_geology_map.pdf
>
> > which is in the Lake Superior area.
>
> Not via glacial transport in the last 5000 years.