3 ms·
I'm a bit confused - why wouldn't it have been under a ton of ice? I thought most of the northern hemisphere was under ice at the time - but from the descriptio
by exe34 2y ago
I'm a bit confused - why wouldn't it have been under a ton of ice? I thought most of the northern hemisphere was under ice at the time - but from the description it sounds almost temperate.
- defrost 2y agoThe notion is that most of the water was held in higher altitude (than sea level) glaciers across interior mountainous regions of the major continents leaving the polar sea extents much as they are today albeit with lower sea levels. See (for further links at least): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia
- exe34 2y agonice, thank you!
- topherclay 2y agoAlaska was never really fully under ice. If you look at this picture of the Laurentide ice sheet [1] during the last glacial maximum [2] then that shows the most Alaska was covered in ice which was 26 to 20 thousand years ago. The time frame where the Bering land bridge is being looked at for the OP article is a wider 36 to 11 thousand years ago. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum
- exe34 2y agothat's really cool thank you!
- yxhuvud 2y agoAnd even if it wasn't glaciated, there should still have been winters where the lakes would have been less of a barrier and more of a clear path to walk..