Missoula floods and an energy problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
Glacial Lake Missoula was formed by the damming of the Clark Fork River during the Fraser Glaciation, leading to significant flooding events between 21.4 and 13.4 thousand years ago. Recent calculations suggest that melting the ice sheets during the last glacial maximum required approximately 30 W/m2 of energy, raising questions about the energy sources available during periods of low insolation. The flooding may not have been solely due to ice melt, as the Clark Fork River could have contributed normal river flow to the lake. There is a discrepancy regarding the timing of ice sheet retreats and advances, complicating the understanding of how the ice dam was maintained. Further study is needed to clarify these relationships and the energy dynamics involved.
Andre
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
73
As I was reading Hanson et al 2012...

Glacial Lake Missoula formed when the Purcell Trench lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet dammed Clark Fork River in Montana during the Fraser Glaciation (marine oxygen isotope stage 2). Over a period of several thousand years, the lake repeatedly filled and drained through its ice dam, and floodwaters coursed across the landscape in eastern Washington.
(...)
The floods date to between approximately 21.4 and 13.4 cal ka ago based on regional chronological data. ...

That made me think of another recent contemplation about energy required and available for all that melting as per http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/Hare1976.QR.PersistentProblemsEnergytoMeltLIS.pdf .

So Hare triggered me to do some very rough order of magnitude calculations on http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/icemeltenergy.xlsx to find that the melting of the ice sheets in the last glacial maximum would have required some ROM of 30 W/m2.

Now looking at the July insolation graph on 65 North latitude lowest one here we see insolation variations of 50-80 W/m2, so that seemed not unreasonable initially.

However in combination with Hanson et al 2012 and the earliest dating of the Missoula floodings after 21,400 years ago, a question arises. If you have a flood, you need to melt the ice first and looking at the insolation graph, we were at a minimum at that time and the ice should have been accumulating - insolation wise. So where did the energy come from? What is wrong here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
If you have a flood, you need to melt the ice first
That's the problem right there. If you look at a map of the Lake and surrounding area, you'll realize that what really happened was that the glacier blocked the course of an existing river, the Clark Fork of the Columbia. The Clark Fork (as it is generally referred to) has a drainage area mostly to the south and east of the Purcell lobe, so the water that filled the lake was not necessarily ice melt but whatever kind of water a Montana river normally receives.
 
I meant to return here sooner, but some study needed to be done first, anyway.

With repeated floodings you would expect an ice sheet advancing stage required to restore the ice dam after the breach.

The problem here is that several studies suggest a rather early retreat for the Cordilleran like this here suggesting 16 Ka BP calibrated to about 19.3 Ka Cal BP, so there are several thousand years that an ice dam appeared to have restored by advancing in a generally retreating scenario.

I'll study some more.
 
Hello, I’m currently writing a series of essays on Pangaea, continental drift, and Earth’s geological cycles. While working on my research, I’ve come across some inconsistencies in the existing theories — for example, why the main pressure seems to have been concentrated in the northern polar regions. So I’m curious: is there any data or evidence suggesting that an external cosmic body (an asteroid, comet, or another massive object) could have influenced Earth’s geology in the distant...
On August 10, 2025, there was a massive landslide on the eastern side of Tracy Arm fjord. Although some sources mention 1000 ft tsunami, that height represents the run-up on the sides of the fjord. Technically it was a seiche. Early View of Tracy Arm Landslide Features Tsunami-causing slide was largest in decade, earthquake center finds https://www.gi.alaska.edu/news/tsunami-causing-slide-was-largest-decade-earthquake-center-finds...

Similar threads

Back
Top