Were There No Real Glaciations?

[buildreps]

Under this provoking title I'll explain what I mean. Has any of the scientists on this forum ever stepped outside of their safe boxes when attempting to explain glaciation cycles? I state that most of the data has been interpreted entirely wrong, and I'll explain why.

During the last ice age, the geographical pole was on Greenland. After a crustal shift, the pole went to its current location. That explains why it is melting ever since, and why it's melting so very slowly. Do your deep math well and you'll find out that I'm right.

But it goes much further. There were much more pole shifts: every glaciation cycle represents a pole shift. The picture shows the last 4 locations of the Geographical North poles. How they are determined will be published in 2016.

Think what happens if you presume the crust is fixed, while in fact it shifted many times. You'll assume that temperatures changed, while in fact the location is what has changed. No proof? Look better to the data and learn to understand how it can be interpreted more consistently.

What caused the ice ages? No one has a credible explanation. The Milankovitch cycles are too weak and can be also easily be used to disapprove it as the cause. It just strengthen or weakens in a certain situation, and is not the major cause. The CO2 discussion is populistic nonsense for parrots. That's not the cause, it's the effect of global warming.

When a geo pole shifts over land the cold will concentrate in a smaller area, similar as the effect we see in land climate or sea climate. Sea distributes the cold, while land accumulates the cold.

What triggered tectonics plates to break apart in the first place? It is the compression and decompression of the crust when it has been forced over the poles.

Look at the coastlines of Western Greenland and Northern Canada. Why is it looking like this? Because it has been pulled apart after being compressed.

Why is the crust relatively thin over there? Because the crust (and lithosphere) has been stretched after it travelled over the pole.

Why did we find temperature anomalies during the last glaciations? Because the crustal shifts of about 12 to 14 degrees represent a temperature change of about 10 degrees Celsius. With every crustal shift the situation looks totally different; Is there land or sea on the poles? Which large ice sheets are shifted from the poles to another location?

There's no proof for crustal shifts? Look at the paleomagnetic data. All the proof is there to find for who has eyes to see. Not only the magnetic field changes, the crust changes as well.

Don't just parrot the usual stuff when you're trying to explain the glaciations.

You'll find some information here: hubpages.com/education/Why-is-Greenland-Covered-in-Ice

Let's discuss this issue!

 

[douglavers]

I cannot see that the presence [or absence] of a relatively extremely thin layer of ice would make much difference to continental plate sideways movement. Having said that, crustal plates will push upwards if a kilometer or so of ice is removed [Scandinavia].

I think giant magma currents from deep within the planet are a more convincing explanation of plate movements.


The theory is called plate tectonics.

[acidohm]

The age of existing magma plumes would indicate if sudden crust displacement has occurred, Hawaii for example.

I'm sure if the crust moved, the plume would not and there would be matching extinct chains of volcanos in relation to existing ones??

[sigurdur]

OK.
1. There is no evidence of the geologigical North Pole has shifted to the degree indicated.

2. Precipitation patterns. Greenland receives more than 240" of snow a year. Have a snow bank big enough, even a LOT further south and it won't melt. Example of this is Winnipeg's snow dump last summer. It barely melted by the end of September, and the mass of the snow compared to Greenland's mass of snow is like a speck of dust on a herd of elephants butts.

3. Tectonic drift. There is no evidence of large scale tectonic drifts in reference to Greenland. 95%+ of Greenland's ice sheet does melt off during an interglacial. There is a small part of the ice sheet that survived the last one, and is aged approx 200,000 years. That is the oldest ice on Greenland.

4. To have a geological shift of the magnitude indicated, would result in an opposite shift in Antarctica. No evidence of that to be found.

I have an open mind, some say it is drafty.

[sigurdur]

However, keep posting. I look forward to your 2016 posts.

Merry Christmas.

[nonentropic]

yes i sit with Sig here. the Greenland icecore is a valid record of the last 200kyrs and they can see a relatively stable cyclical flow of temperature and precipitation as snow. I see no issue with the region holding and accumulating the whole way through.

why the need for polar shift to explain this.

200kyrs is a moment in techtonic or geological time.

please a bit more flesh on your story as it could fit the current facts but the current story fits quite well with the events.

i do accept the cause of global temerature change or GW is not nailed down and its very much needed.

[buildreps]

Thanks for your replies. A Merry Christmas to all of you!

[buildreps]

Thanks douglavers, acidohm, sigurdur, and nonentropic. Your feedback is much appreciated.

The paleomagnetic records allegedly support the claim for a magnetic pole switch, while with exactly the same data it can account for a geographical pole switch as well. It's all about interpretations and imagination to explain our immense complex world.

So, based on what evidence can science ever claim that magnetic pole switches were the only event? Science was so happy to have found the tectonic plate movements to explain geological events, that everything else, like crustal shifts, were completely dismissed. And that was a tragic error. And it's even not based on facts, it's based on a believe how data must be interpreted.

The Greenland ice core could have started to develop when the former pole was at two former locations: 45W,62N (2) and 50W,75N (3). Two different pole shifts would then developed this ice sheet. If a pole shift = a glaciation cycle, the ice sheet of Greenland would then indeed be between 200 and 250 ky old.

So far there are no contradictions in the interpretation of the data.

The evidence for the claim is based on 170 ancient locations that are aligned to a few locations, all concentrated around Greenland. From the 170 alignments there are only four major cross points to find:
1) 40W, 50N
2) 45W, 62N
3) 50W, 75N
4) 0, 90N (current pole location)

Like we prefer today, ancient civilizations preferred to align their temples to the geo pole. Ask an architect what he/she prefers to do when a building has to be aligned.
- In the middle of a city, it will be in alignment with the other buildings, and the logic of the city plan.
- Along coast lines it will be often in accordance with the coast lines.
- When you like to build a 'green' building, you prefer to align to the sun positions, and therefore to the geo pole.
- With fortifications it will be in accordance with the most likely attack locations of enemies.
- Isolated temples that are mostly dedicated to the gods of the sky, the Sun, or whatever. It will be in accordance with the only fixed point there is - the geo pole.

And this is exactly what you will find when you study all the pyramids around the world. There are only four major alignments to find.

The precision of the crossing lines is amazing. All the data will be interpreted and explained extensively in a book, it's too much to write it all down in here. The point is that science is completely compartmentalised, and making cross links between different disciplines is regarded as pseudo-science, which is also a tragic error. You can very successfully relate culture with nature to explain what has happened in ancient times.

Just for your fun, check the alignment of El Caracol, which was an astrological observation object in Belize of the (pre) Maya population. It is aligned under an angle of 11.5°. To which location is that pointing do you think? And why would they have done this? Just randomly positioned? Think twice before you answer that question.

I don't see contradictions in the development of the Antarctic ice sheet. When the former North geo pole was at 45W, 62N the South geo pole was somewhere near Mertz. The Antarctic ice sheet is at its fattest around Queen Mary Land. The fattest parts of the Greenland ice sheet is approximately at the opposite point.

It still isn't contradicting the claim that the geo poles moved over both the continents, Greenland and Antarctica.
Here's El Caracol. Absolutely wrong interpreted with the current location of the geo pole: 

Wish you all a great Christmas weekend!

[nonentropic]

the magnetic pole is not aligned with the axis at this moment in time and is drifting, it reverse quite regularly again we know its not linked with the axis so magnetic shift and axis are independent to a large extent.

My instinct is that the magnetic pole is induced by out of earth forces the sun as an example and the earths rotation which is very hard to shift because of the energy required for change.

the consequences of an axis shift would be interesting but there would be a lot of tectonic episodes, volcanic and seismic plus the tide would all vastly shift around the world

[missouriboy]

Dec 23, 2015 21:47:32 GMT acidohm said:

The age of existing magma plumes would indicate if sudden crust displacement has occurred, Hawaii for example.

I'm sure if the crust moved, the plume would not and there would be matching extinct chains of volcanos in relation to existing ones??

There are a string of old volcanic craters extending northwestward away from the current hot spot on the island of Hawaii.
I remember crustal movement being used as the primary explanation for this pattern in my long-ago college classes.
Of course, most crustal movements were taught as being largely incremental ... not cataclysmic ... chains of small jerks  .

[acidohm]

Dec 24, 2015 20:40:09 GMT missouriboy said:

Dec 23, 2015 21:47:32 GMT acidohm said:

The age of existing magma plumes would indicate if sudden crust displacement has occurred, Hawaii for example.

I'm sure if the crust moved, the plume would not and there would be matching extinct chains of volcanos in relation to existing ones??

There are a string of old volcanic craters extending northwestward away from the current hot spot on the island of Hawaii.
I remember crustal movement being used as the primary explanation for this pattern in my long-ago college classes.
Of course, most crustal movements were taught as being largely incremental ... not cataclysmic ... chains of small jerks  .

Ok! Fair play mboy! Any other examples? Iceland maybe? That's even local to Greenland!!

[nonentropic]

the line migrates.

Here in NZ we see arcs of volcanoes move slowly from east to west the other way over relatively short time frames, 100kyr periods.

episodes of volcanic activity are also real such as the Indian region and many more.

[missouriboy]

Dec 24, 2015 20:49:14 GMT acidohm said:

Dec 24, 2015 20:40:09 GMT missouriboy said:

There are a string of old volcanic craters extending northwestward away from the current hot spot on the island of Hawaii.
I remember crustal movement being used as the primary explanation for this pattern in my long-ago college classes.
Of course, most crustal movements were taught as being largely incremental ... not cataclysmic ... chains of small jerks  .

Ok! Fair play mboy! Any other examples? Iceland maybe? That's even local to Greenland!!

Hadn't looked befote, but, in this image you can see the seafloor mounts associated with the Hawaiian Islands.  For scale, the Big Island
is about 60 miles across.
There are also some in the Indian Ocean ... I assume they are volcanic.  But nothing that looks similar in the Arctic ... more blocky.  
But we know that there is volcanism where the mid-Atlantic Ridge hits Iceland and probably beyond.

[acidohm]

Absolutely, I realise that nonentropic, my fault, I misinterpreted Missouriboy post....my point is, if you had 4 hotpots around the globe sprouting volcano chains, then the crust slipped, New chains would form over the hotspots. ..but you'd be able to tell where the crust was previously by the older chains.

[acidohm]

Tbh, a quick scan shows most existing belts to be millions of years old, there are extinct belts but we're talking '00s of millions of years.

Kinda debunks any crustal slip, I wouldn't expect mantle circulation dynamics to be affected by the movement of 20km or so thick crust??