At http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/04/greenland-raised-beaches/ … Tim Cullen raises some anomalies on Greenland and as always is thought provoking and perplexing at the same time. In this post it is raised beaches – and the official consensus explanation for these oddities of geology. He begins by quoting an old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (the one with all the paper volumes and the stiff covers that were sold by door to door salesmen). This reaches the conclusion the whole of Greenland has been raised out of the sea – or sea levels have declined – in post glacial times. The upheaval, it seems, was greatest in the north – and one can immediately foresee where this is going as sea levels are supposed to have dramatically increased following the Ice Age ice sheet. Tim Cullen plotted a list of sea levels derived from raised beaches and came to the conclusion Greenland has tilted – or has the Earth tilted (we might wonder). However, the bedrock is apparently inflexible and is more likely to fracture rather than bend or buckle. A recently discovered canyon under the ice is said to be larger than the Grand Conyon, at 460 miles in length and 800m deep. However, this geological feature is thought to predate the ice sheet so is ruled out – see www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-data-reveals-mega-canyon-under-greenla…
A connection between raised beaches and the canyon is unlikely as C14 dating of material from raised beaches indicates they were fairly late. Or does it? Tim Cullen claims that mainstream has a problem as the data is not as neat as it is presented in text books. According to measurements the lowest point of sea level was during the Late Glacial Maximum, which in mainstream is the maximum point of growth of the ice sheet and therefore of water locked up as ice, around 22,000 years ago (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level … but Greenland bedrock appears to have risen by a potential of 276 feet. As the ice sheet melted, according to mainstream belief, they lost mass – and sea levels increased. Tim Cullen says it is unsurprising that 'academic amnesia' and 'mainstream myopia' have caused the raised beaches of Greenland to become 'unfashionable' (ignored). The The ice in the current ice sheet is up to 110,000 years of age and we are told the weight of this ice depressed the centre of Greenland. Mainstream is keen to avoid answering awkward questions about Greenland in the last Ice Age because a significant portion of the interior is 70m below sea level – even after the bedrock has bounced back. Unravelling all the rises, noted by researchers, indicates large parts of Greenland were 216m bleow sea level during the LGM – which means Greenland must have been an archipelago and what is now interior Greenland would have been covered in sea ice (not an ice sheet). Later, as Greenland rose the sea ice became trapped in the interior basin (about 8000 years ago) when sea levels finally became stable (or last adjusted themselves).
Tim Cullen, as always, ask the unthinkable. Are the lower portions of Greenland ice cores sea ice from before 8000 years ago? Or are Greenland's oldest ice core no older than 8000 years ago? … or is mainstream sea level interpretation up the creek without a paddle. Common sense it is the latter – but I'm sure some catastrophists might be attracted by the former. What Tim Cullen has discovered, or appears on the face of it to have discovered, is that post glacial rebound is very much over estimated – and something else was responsible for sea levels rising to such great heights after the end of the Ice Age (and again at around 8000 years ago). A readjustment of the geoid springs to mind, a tidy sort of explanation. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound