Were Glaciations Nothing More Than Crustal Shifts?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Were Glaciations Nothing More Than Crustal Shifts?

Were Glaciations Nothing More Than Crustal Shifts?23-12-2015 21:03
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	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! PS: file uploading doesn't seem to work, sorry. Edited on 23-12-2015 21:05
24-12-2015 00:48
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Buildreps wrote: ...Has any of the scientists on this forum .... ....During the last ice age, the geographical pole was on Greenland..... Since I'm not a scientist, maybe I'm not qualified to ask this question, but anyway... What evidence can you point me to supporting that statement about the geographical pole being on Greenland? Preferably something peer-reviewed.
24-12-2015 10:48
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	still learning wrote: Since I'm not a scientist, maybe I'm not qualified to ask this question, but anyway... What evidence can you point me to supporting that statement about the geographical pole being on Greenland? Preferably something peer-reviewed. The paleomagnetic records allegedly support the claim for a magnetic pole switch, while it with the same data can account for a geographical pole switch as well. So, based on what evidence did science ever claim that magnetic pole switches were the only event? But paleomagnetic data is not what I used to support this claim. Why should I want to have this peer-reviewed? The scientific institutions believe only in their own paradigm? It would be a waste of time and energy. I've enough scientists in my family to let them quarrel over my findings. Thanks for the suggestion anyway. The evidence is based on 170 ancient locations that are aligned to a few locations, all concentrated around Greenland. From the 170 alignment there are only four major cross points to find: 1) 40W, 50N 2) 45W, 62N 3) 50W, 75N 4) 0, 90N (current pole location) All the data will be explained extensively in a book, it's too much to write it all down in here. Edited on 24-12-2015 10:54
24-12-2015 11:05
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Glaciations happen when there is land above the pole. They are then governed by the cycles of the earth's orbit and axial tilt. This whole thing has been worked out well and is well understood. Edited on 24-12-2015 11:05
24-12-2015 11:59
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Buildreps wrote: ....The evidence is based on 170 ancient locations that are aligned to a few locations.....All the data will be explained extensively in a book, it's too much to write it all down in here. So, no evidence to point me to. Nothing published anyway, peer review or not. "All the data will be explained..." you say. The "170 ancient locations" bit doesn't reassure me. Let us know when you can explain yourself about your pole shift.

24-12-2015 15:55
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	Thanks. 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? When crustal shifts were completely dismissed, the only thing that was left were the magnetic reversals. That assumpton 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. 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 are mostly dedicated to the gods of the sky, the Sun, or whatever. Their alignment 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. There are no 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. Wish you all a great Christmas weekend! Edited on 24-12-2015 15:57
27-01-2016 17:18
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	The geo North pole was on Greenland with a certainty of 99.999999997%. Shall we round it up to a 100%?
27-01-2016 17:45
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	I was having trouble beliving any of this but with you rounding it up to 100% I'm convinced
27-01-2016 19:06
MK001 ★☆☆☆☆ (64)	Buildreps wrote: still learning wrote: Since I'm not a scientist, maybe I'm not qualified to ask this question, but anyway... What evidence can you point me to supporting that statement about the geographical pole being on Greenland? Preferably something peer-reviewed. The paleomagnetic records allegedly support the claim for a magnetic pole switch, while it with the same data can account for a geographical pole switch as well. So, based on what evidence did science ever claim that magnetic pole switches were the only event? But paleomagnetic data is not what I used to support this claim. Why should I want to have this peer-reviewed? The scientific institutions believe only in their own paradigm? It would be a waste of time and energy. I've enough scientists in my family to let them quarrel over my findings. Thanks for the suggestion anyway. The evidence is based on 170 ancient locations that are aligned to a few locations, all concentrated around Greenland. From the 170 alignment there are only four major cross points to find: 1) 40W, 50N 2) 45W, 62N 3) 50W, 75N 4) 0, 90N (current pole location) All the data will be explained extensively in a book, it's too much to write it all down in here. the 2015 location of the north magnetic pole is 86.27°N and 159.18°W
27-01-2016 21:07
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	You seem to be confusing the magnetic pole of the Earth which is continually shifting, even reversing, with respect to the geographic north pole which is determined by the spin axis of the Earth. The geographic north pole does not shift significantly. The Earth is like a huge spinning gyro and the amount of energy needed to move it is massive. It would take a collision with another large object to shift it noticeably.
28-01-2016 00:15
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	DRKTS wrote: You seem to be confusing the magnetic pole of the Earth which is continually shifting, even reversing, with respect to the geographic north pole which is determined by the spin axis of the Earth. The geographic north pole does not shift significantly. The Earth is like a huge spinning gyro and the amount of energy needed to move it is massive. It would take a collision with another large object to shift it noticeably. It's true that the magnetic pole constantly shifts, but the rest is just a subjective assumption that you posit here. We're working on the mathematical model which will prove how the crust slips and which force is responsible for it. It's no collision. Edited on 28-01-2016 00:16
28-01-2016 00:52
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	What force could move it then? Perhaps the Starship Enterprise towed the crust
28-01-2016 02:14
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Buildreps wrote: It's true that the magnetic pole constantly shifts, but the rest is just a subjective assumption that you posit here. We're working on the mathematical model which will prove how the crust slips and which force is responsible for it. It's no collision. Good luck with that because it aint going to work. The energy in crust motions are not sufficient to alter the spin axis of the Earth by a significant amount. The rotational energy of the Earth is about 2x10^(29) joules. So you would need twice that to reverse it. That is more energy than it would take to melt the Earth.
28-01-2016 11:03
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	DRKTS wrote: Buildreps wrote: It's true that the magnetic pole constantly shifts, but the rest is just a subjective assumption that you posit here. We're working on the mathematical model which will prove how the crust slips and which force is responsible for it. It's no collision. Good luck with that because it aint going to work. The energy in crust motions are not sufficient to alter the spin axis of the Earth by a significant amount. The rotational energy of the Earth is about 2x10^(29) joules. So you would need twice that to reverse it. That is more energy than it would take to melt the Earth. Who said something about reversing motions?
28-01-2016 11:53
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	Buildreps wrote: Who said something about reversing motions? I just did as an example of the energy requirement to change the spin of our planet Besides still nobody has yet explained why they are mixing up magnetic pole which does change with spin axis (geographic pole) which does not.

28-01-2016 12:12
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	DRKTS wrote: Buildreps wrote: Who said something about reversing motions? I just did as an example of the energy requirement to change the spin of our planet Besides still nobody has yet explained why they are mixing up magnetic pole which does change with spin axis (geographic pole) which does not. Paleomagnetic data is in fact a great source of information, but geology makes the assumption that only the magnetic pole changed. The paleo data contains in fact the sum of two data: magnetic shifts + crustal shifts.
28-01-2016 15:07
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	AFAIK, the most prevalent theory is that the major ice ages were probably due to continental drift giving rise to particular arrangements of land masses that hindered effective heat transport to the poles and thus allowed ice sheets to form. The current major ice age, lasting for the last 3 million years or so, is then explained by the existence of a large continent over the south pole and a mostly landlocked ocean at the north pole. It is the quasi-periodic, geologically brief warmer intervals (interglacial periods) during the current major ice age - the current one lasting for the last 10,000 years or so - that are believed to have been triggered by Milankovitch cycles and amplified by positive feedbacks such as changes in albedo and greenhouse gas levels.
28-01-2016 15:31
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	The most prevalent theory doesn't explain the large eccentricity of the last ice age in relation to the current geo pole, which it should do to be even prevailing. Because it doesn't it neglects this fact, and is therefore ipso facto false. This article explains some of it in popular terms: http://hubpages.com/education/Why-is-Greenland-Covered-in-Ice The proof of the whole theory can't be pressed into one article, it will be included in the book. Edited on 28-01-2016 15:51
28-01-2016 17:36
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	Buildreps wrote: The most prevalent theory ......is therefore ipso facto false. This article explains some of it in popular terms: http://hubpages.com/education/Why-is-Greenland-Covered-in-Ice The proof of the whole theory can't be pressed into one article, it will be included in the book. When reading the article Buildrep linked to I kept hoping for something useful until I read "The centre point of the last ice age is exactly in line with the alignment of nearly 60 ancient pyramids all around the world. You can read it here." There I stopped reading. Pyramids explain.......
28-01-2016 18:05
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	Don't limit yourself. It doesn't cost you a dime. Stop reading is what most 'scientific' minded people tend to do, but honestly it's just take or leave it.
28-01-2016 19:05
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Are you in this Buildreps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKobmM2OnDc
28-01-2016 19:52
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	spot wrote: Are you in this Buildreps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKobmM2OnDc do you want me to be like this? Or is it just your projection on your surrounding? Edited on 28-01-2016 19:52
29-01-2016 02:45
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	still learning wrote: Buildreps wrote: The most prevalent theory ......is therefore ipso facto false. This article explains some of it in popular terms: http://hubpages.com/education/Why-is-Greenland-Covered-in-Ice The proof of the whole theory can't be pressed into one article, it will be included in the book. When reading the article Buildrep linked to I kept hoping for something useful until I read "The centre point of the last ice age is exactly in line with the alignment of nearly 60 ancient pyramids all around the world. You can read it here." There I stopped reading. Pyramids explain....... Unfortunately, the author seems to have neglected the most well-known pyramids of all. A bit of cursory research indicates that the great pyramid of Giza and its neighbours are in fact precisely aligned with the current north pole (to within 1/10th of a degree). Do they not count for some reason?
29-01-2016 10:22
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	Surface Detail wrote: still learning wrote: Buildreps wrote: The most prevalent theory ......is therefore ipso facto false. This article explains some of it in popular terms: http://hubpages.com/education/Why-is-Greenland-Covered-in-Ice The proof of the whole theory can't be pressed into one article, it will be included in the book. When reading the article Buildrep linked to I kept hoping for something useful until I read "The centre point of the last ice age is exactly in line with the alignment of nearly 60 ancient pyramids all around the world. You can read it here." There I stopped reading. Pyramids explain....... Unfortunately, the author seems to have neglected the most well-known pyramids of all. A bit of cursory research indicates that the great pyramid of Giza and its neighbours are in fact precisely aligned with the current north pole (to within 1/10th of a degree). Do they not count for some reason? Oh my God There are many people capable touching a keyboard who aren't able to read or think. Whom of you are active in climate research? That would explain much... Edited on 29-01-2016 10:23
29-01-2016 11:14
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Buildreps wrote: Surface Detail wrote: still learning wrote: Buildreps wrote: The most prevalent theory ......is therefore ipso facto false. This article explains some of it in popular terms: http://hubpages.com/education/Why-is-Greenland-Covered-in-Ice The proof of the whole theory can't be pressed into one article, it will be included in the book. When reading the article Buildrep linked to I kept hoping for something useful until I read "The centre point of the last ice age is exactly in line with the alignment of nearly 60 ancient pyramids all around the world. You can read it here." There I stopped reading. Pyramids explain....... Unfortunately, the author seems to have neglected the most well-known pyramids of all. A bit of cursory research indicates that the great pyramid of Giza and its neighbours are in fact precisely aligned with the current north pole (to within 1/10th of a degree). Do they not count for some reason? Oh my God There are many people capable touching a keyboard who aren't able to read or think. Whom of you are active in climate research? That would explain much... Ah, silly me for thinking the pyramids at Giza are ancient. My bad for not following the obscure links in your article in which you claim that radiocarbon dating is all wrong and the pyramids at Giza are actually much newer than certain unspecified structures in China and Mexico, which you claim were built over 110,000 years ago, in the Eemian interglacial period. This is far earlier than any evidence of human settlement in these areas - do you think they were built by aliens? Perhaps the same ones that provided the vast amount of energy you'd need to change the Earth's axis of rotation?
29-01-2016 14:53
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	It's you who is speculating about what I've written, and it is you who is obscuring interpretations. The method in itself of decay of C14 is perfectly scientific. The way it is used is obscure. Who said something about aliens? Again, it's you who is obscuring interpretations. I challenge you to explain scientifically a clustering of alignments without falling into the usual idiocy of 'coincidence' or 'random events'. Edited on 29-01-2016 14:53
29-01-2016 15:06
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Buildreps wrote: It's you who is speculating about what I've written, and it is you who is obscuring interpretations. The method in itself of decay of C14 is perfectly scientific. The way it is used is obscure. Who said something about aliens? Again, it's you who is obscuring interpretations. I challenge you to explain scientifically a clustering of alignments without falling into the usual idiocy of 'coincidence' or 'random events'. I can't explain data that you haven't presented! Where exactly are these 60 pyramids that you're talking about? Please could you list their locations and alignments here for me to analyse myself.
29-01-2016 15:07
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	The problem is you havent proved that there even is a clustering of allignments. Sorry we dont want to be rude but without evidence what is there to discuss?
29-01-2016 15:08
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	No, I won't. You have to trust me on the accuracy of the data, and if you don't I can't help you any further. The data will be published in a book which will be released in about a year. In the mean time you have to wait, or just forget about it.
29-01-2016 15:11
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Buildreps wrote: No, I won't. You have to trust me on the accuracy of the data, and if you don't I can't help you any further. The data will be published in a book which will be released in about a year. In the mean time you have to wait, or just forget about it. Well, let's just say I won't be holding my breath.
29-01-2016 15:21
Buildreps ★☆☆☆☆ (100)	Surface Detail wrote: Buildreps wrote: No, I won't. You have to trust me on the accuracy of the data, and if you don't I can't help you any further. The data will be published in a book which will be released in about a year. In the mean time you have to wait, or just forget about it. Well, let's just say I won't be holding my breath. Happy to here that, Surface

Join the debate Were Glaciations Nothing More Than Crustal Shifts?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Cause of Ice Ages: Crustal Displacements	7	31-08-2016 16:24