Lacustrine deposit...... it's not shield rock.

The fastest isostatic rebound is experienced on the Island of Igloolik. Your
internet intellect falls short of reality.

CM

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/...%20Rebound.htm

Says:

"The greatest measured rates of isostatic or postglacial rebound in North
America occur in the Richmond Gulf area of southeastern Hudson Bay
(presumably where the ice was thickest). There, a kind of "staircase" of
185 Holocene (postglacial) strandlines (former shorelines) provide a
continuous record of emergence from about 8,000 years ago until the
present.
At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded by
these
strandlines. By determining the age of these strand lines, and by
subtracting the apparent component of uplift due to relative sea level
fluctuations, geologists have been able to measure rates of isostatic
rebound. The rates of uplift have declined from a maximum of 33 to 39
feet
per 100 years immediately following deglaciation (8,000 years ago at
Hudson
Bay - in North Dakota deglaciation occurred about 5,000 years earlier) to
a
current rate of about 4.3 feet/100 years. In other words, the shoreline
at
Churchill, Manitoba on the shore of Hudson Bay is currently rising about
4.3
feet per century."

Not only are you remarkably wrong in your statements, the fastest North
American rebound on record is right under your own two feet! And you've
shot
both of them!

You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever
encountered are in your head!

Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more?

Amen!

Bob Crantz





"Overproof" wrote in message
news:PBKAd.35229$dv1.16823@edtnps89...
Isostatic rebound is not uniform.... it is the result of removal of
pressure from Glacial encroachment. It is entirely subject to underlying
geomorphology

No accurate data exists beyond about 50 years ago.... the data is
interpolated from archeological investigation is based on proximity to
water
of ancient campsites.

The Laurentian Shield is not undergoing isostatic rebound at the rate you
posted.

If this were so...... we could buy sea frontage and expect our
investment
to gain a meter every hundred years. I can assure you nobody has reported
such gains in the last 3 centuries.

The mid Atlantic Ridge is the opposing the subduction of the Pacific
plates.

Now cry to your God about how unfair life is and that Creationism is
still
a
viable explanation of mankind's evolution.

Fanatics!... Phffft!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
You fool! The isostatic rebound of the Laurentian Shield is quoted as
1-2
cm/yr:

http://travesti.eps.mcgill.ca/~olivi...es/node43.html

Plus there's other rebounds of at least 2 inches per year! If rock had
the
coefficient of restitution that you quote there would be no earthquakes
over
magnitude 4! You, sir, are no arm chair geologist! Your chair has no
arms,
you are a barstool geologist!

Amen!

BC

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of Australia
or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move of
that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as
Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland)
had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate moving
36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the
area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved,
but
I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire
tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate
moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then
Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that
plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the
"Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these
questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula

I just love it when they start researching on the internet...... when they
find something to back their argument it's a factual statement.... when it
fails to back their claims it's just more internet crap.

BTW - I'm not a Geologist... I'm a Geotechnical Technician.

CM


"Scout" wrote in message
...
ROFLMAO - Ya gotta just love it when the debate gets around to this!
For my money, there's never been a funnier line.

"Bob Crantz" wrote:
You fool!

That seems a whole lot more plausible Peter. Plate subduction can be extreme
at times of failure..... but what will be most interesting is the cause of
the massive plate movement in the first place.

Tectonic Plate subduction is the primary cause of "Earthquakes" as well as
volcanic formations. Fault line slip is not the culprit... it's the
weakpoint effected by amassing pressure due to tectonic plate movement.

I'm certain our lovable Bible Toting Bob will provide us with further proof
that his assumptions as researched on the internet are correct...... even
though he should admit it was God's Will that this occurred. Next thing we
know he'll be questioning "Creationism"

CM


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I just read in today's paper that the source seems to be Ken Hudnut from
the
US-GS. He has been quoted for saying something like:
"The earthquake changed the world map"
"Small islands in the Indian Ocean has been moved up to 20 meters, while
the
north-western tip of Sumatra may have moved up to 36 meter."
(my translation from the Danish translation).

Erik Schou Jensen, from The Geological Museum at the University of
Copenhagen, thinks that Ken Hudnut has been misquoted, and says:
"What he (KH) is talking about, is a small splinter (?) of a plate located
on the sea-bottom north of Sumatra. This, he (KH) thinks, can have moved
up
to 36 meter"
"It has not been possible to perform the necessary measurements, since the
Indonesian authorities has closed the whole area down (?) but the island
can
have moved a few centimeters..."
"During the earthquake, it was the Indian plate that slid down under the
plate with Sumatra, so it would not have been Sumatra that moved, but the
sea-bottom under the Indian ocean and not more than five to six meter at
one
time."

So it looks like it was just another example of the press not being able
to
present the facts.

Peter S/Y Anicula



Overproof skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of Australia or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move of
that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as
Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland) had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate moving 36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved, but I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then
Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the "Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these
questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message

The Himalayas grow about 1 meter every 100 years as the result of relative
movement of tectonic plates.

Amen!


Bwahahahahahahaaaaa........ Yeah Bob.... India absorbs almost nothing in
regards to plate movement..... it's all miraculously transferred to
foliating the gneiss of the Himalayas a thousand miles inland!

Next you'll be preaching to me how God formed the Rockies!

CM

How about relevant to the established datum... at the time that data was
collected.... and the accuracy of the equipment utilized to derive it.

BTW - Lots of people disagree with me.... none that count though.

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
k.net...
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2004/29/index2.php

Two USGS PhD's seem to disagree with you. Remember, movement is relative -
relative to what?

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/...%20Rebound.htm

Says:

"The greatest measured rates of isostatic or postglacial rebound in North
America occur in the Richmond Gulf area of southeastern Hudson Bay
(presumably where the ice was thickest). There, a kind of "staircase" of
185 Holocene (postglacial) strandlines (former shorelines) provide a
continuous record of emergence from about 8,000 years ago until the
present.

Big problem there is that this is based on uniform movement.... an
implausible assumption which corrupts the basis of the estimate.


At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded by
these
strandlines. By determining the age of these strand lines, and by
subtracting the apparent component of uplift due to relative sea level
fluctuations, geologists have been able to measure rates of isostatic
rebound.

Not rates so much as limits...... rates are "estimated" based on
"assumption" of annual rates.

The rates of uplift have declined from a maximum of 33 to 39 feet
per 100 years immediately following deglaciation (8,000 years ago at
Hudson
Bay - in North Dakota deglaciation occurred about 5,000 years earlier) to
a
current rate of about 4.3 feet/100 years. In other words, the shoreline
at
Churchill, Manitoba on the shore of Hudson Bay is currently rising about
4.3
feet per century."

Again ... the local geomorphology has a lot to do with the rate of rebound.


Not only are you remarkably wrong in your statements, the fastest North
American rebound on record is right under your own two feet! And you've
shot
both of them!

No... I haven't


You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever
encountered are in your head!

You are mistaken..... I've been involved in a detailed reasearch on the
geology of the Northwest Territories.. specifically Glacial Lake McConnell,
it's beach ridge deposits and limits of lacustrine impact as well as the
Moraine, Alluvial formations. I've worked with Petroleum Geologists and
Geological Engineers.


Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more?

Bring it on Bob.... your current stance on evolution will anger your God
when he realizes that you do not believe him to be responsible for such
action.

Seriously Bob... how can anyone lend credence to an argument of scientific
nature presented by someone who believes in "Creationism"???

CM

You have renounced your God... you will burn in the Lava Lakes of Hell!!

CM

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/...%20Rebound.htm

Says:

"The greatest measured rates of isostatic or postglacial rebound in North
America occur in the Richmond Gulf area of southeastern Hudson Bay
(presumably where the ice was thickest). There, a kind of "staircase" of
185 Holocene (postglacial) strandlines (former shorelines) provide a
continuous record of emergence from about 8,000 years ago until the
present.
At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded by
these
strandlines. By determining the age of these strand lines, and by
subtracting the apparent component of uplift due to relative sea level
fluctuations, geologists have been able to measure rates of isostatic
rebound. The rates of uplift have declined from a maximum of 33 to 39
feet
per 100 years immediately following deglaciation (8,000 years ago at
Hudson
Bay - in North Dakota deglaciation occurred about 5,000 years earlier) to
a
current rate of about 4.3 feet/100 years. In other words, the shoreline
at
Churchill, Manitoba on the shore of Hudson Bay is currently rising about
4.3
feet per century."

Not only are you remarkably wrong in your statements, the fastest North
American rebound on record is right under your own two feet! And you've
shot
both of them!

You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever
encountered are in your head!

Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more?

Amen!

Bob Crantz





"Overproof" wrote in message
news:PBKAd.35229$dv1.16823@edtnps89...
Isostatic rebound is not uniform.... it is the result of removal of
pressure from Glacial encroachment. It is entirely subject to underlying
geomorphology

No accurate data exists beyond about 50 years ago.... the data is
interpolated from archeological investigation is based on proximity to
water
of ancient campsites.

The Laurentian Shield is not undergoing isostatic rebound at the rate you
posted.

If this were so...... we could buy sea frontage and expect our
investment
to gain a meter every hundred years. I can assure you nobody has reported
such gains in the last 3 centuries.

The mid Atlantic Ridge is the opposing the subduction of the Pacific
plates.

Now cry to your God about how unfair life is and that Creationism is
still
a
viable explanation of mankind's evolution.

Fanatics!... Phffft!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
You fool! The isostatic rebound of the Laurentian Shield is quoted as
1-2
cm/yr:

http://travesti.eps.mcgill.ca/~olivi...es/node43.html

Plus there's other rebounds of at least 2 inches per year! If rock had
the
coefficient of restitution that you quote there would be no earthquakes
over
magnitude 4! You, sir, are no arm chair geologist! Your chair has no
arms,
you are a barstool geologist!

Amen!

BC

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of Australia
or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move of
that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as
Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland)
had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate moving
36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the
area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved,
but
I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire
tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate
moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then
Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that
plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the
"Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these
questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula

You can attack me or my sources all you want. But you can't refute a single
fact. The bottom line is you said isostatic rebound is never more than a few
cm/100 yrs. I've found numerous references that show otherwise by a large
factor. Every challenge you presented I've met with data published by
geologists at Universities. All you've done is reduce the scope of your
statement or added qualifications. The bottom line is your statement of fact
is wrong. The statement of fact is not altered by your summer job or any
other consideration about you. The facts are proven by reality, not the
colour of your socks.

You've received an efficient and thorough beating from me and you've learned
something too, so you won't look so ridiculous staggering around the bar up
north next summer. You should thank me.

On more note, you won't be going to the lava lakes when you expire. God does
not send retards to hell, he has a special place in heaven for people like
you. Here, on earth, you are an embarrassment to all who drool.

Next time try taking your beating like a man. You'll look less foolish.

Amen!

Bob Crantz



"Overproof" wrote in message
news:0BVAd.33032$Y72.2281@edtnps91...
Lacustrine deposit...... it's not shield rock.

The fastest isostatic rebound is experienced on the Island of Igloolik.
Your
internet intellect falls short of reality.

CM

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/...%20Rebound.htm

Says:

"The greatest measured rates of isostatic or postglacial rebound in
North
America occur in the Richmond Gulf area of southeastern Hudson Bay
(presumably where the ice was thickest). There, a kind of "staircase"
of
185 Holocene (postglacial) strandlines (former shorelines) provide a
continuous record of emergence from about 8,000 years ago until the
present.
At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded by
these
strandlines. By determining the age of these strand lines, and by
subtracting the apparent component of uplift due to relative sea level
fluctuations, geologists have been able to measure rates of isostatic
rebound. The rates of uplift have declined from a maximum of 33 to 39
feet
per 100 years immediately following deglaciation (8,000 years ago at
Hudson
Bay - in North Dakota deglaciation occurred about 5,000 years earlier)
to
a
current rate of about 4.3 feet/100 years. In other words, the
shoreline
at
Churchill, Manitoba on the shore of Hudson Bay is currently rising about
4.3
feet per century."

Not only are you remarkably wrong in your statements, the fastest North
American rebound on record is right under your own two feet! And you've
shot
both of them!

You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever
encountered are in your head!

Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more?

Amen!

Bob Crantz





"Overproof" wrote in message
news:PBKAd.35229$dv1.16823@edtnps89...
Isostatic rebound is not uniform.... it is the result of removal of
pressure from Glacial encroachment. It is entirely subject to
underlying
geomorphology

No accurate data exists beyond about 50 years ago.... the data is
interpolated from archeological investigation is based on proximity to
water
of ancient campsites.

The Laurentian Shield is not undergoing isostatic rebound at the rate
you
posted.

If this were so...... we could buy sea frontage and expect our
investment
to gain a meter every hundred years. I can assure you nobody has
reported
such gains in the last 3 centuries.

The mid Atlantic Ridge is the opposing the subduction of the Pacific
plates.

Now cry to your God about how unfair life is and that Creationism is
still
a
viable explanation of mankind's evolution.

Fanatics!... Phffft!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
You fool! The isostatic rebound of the Laurentian Shield is quoted
as
1-2
cm/yr:

http://travesti.eps.mcgill.ca/~olivi...es/node43.html

Plus there's other rebounds of at least 2 inches per year! If rock
had
the
coefficient of restitution that you quote there would be no
earthquakes
over
magnitude 4! You, sir, are no arm chair geologist! Your chair has no
arms,
you are a barstool geologist!

Amen!

BC

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of
Australia
or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move
of
that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as
Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think
it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland)
had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate
moving
36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the
area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved,
but
I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire
tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate
moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then
Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that
plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates
have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see
today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the
"Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these
questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula

I see you here administering a severe beating to CM with your
every post. Who says men of the cloth are narrow-minded and
ignorant? You, sir, prove otherwise with your every erudite,
factual and insightful post. Your grasp of the physical world
is ever so much worldly than a certain, drunken, Nova Scotia,
neophyte sailor's ever will be.

In spite of being soundly pummeled about the head and
shoulders, I see CM remains in total denial. How is it some
folks can't seem to accept reality, admit their mistakes
and step out of the pyre that consumes them?

Could it be they are so possessed by Lucifer that they have
come to enjoy ignorance and pain? Surely such as CM will
have their immortal souls reincarnated in canine form so
they will have two more feet to chew off when they get
caught in the inevitable bear trap of their own stupidity.

Praise! Glory.

CN



"Bob Crantz" wrote in message k.net...
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2004/29/index2.php

Two USGS PhD's seem to disagree with you. Remember, movement is relative -
relative to what?



"Overproof" wrote in message
news:2DKAd.35231$dv1.5881@edtnps89...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the "Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these questions ?


A report on the news tonight said that some Islands close to the
epicentre
had moved 120 metres.

Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that sounds.??

CM

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound arguing with Bob Crantz?

Bwahahaahahaaa

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:2DKAd.35231$dv1.5881@edtnps89...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the "Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these questions ?


A report on the news tonight said that some Islands close to the
epicentre
had moved 120 metres.

Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that sounds.??

CM