Climate Change Caused by CO2 – Is it True?

What is Climate?

The climate debate has become hotter than ever. There are many Internet forums where supporters and opponents of carbon induced global warming incessantly bombard each other with arguments. It’s a jammed trench warfare. The discussion hasn’t made one inch of progress over the years.

Where is climate actually made of? Temperature, humidity, wind speed, rainfall, and sunny hours give a good indication of what climate actually is. When the patterns of these five variables permanently change on a significant scale we could speak of a changing climate. Is this ever done properly on a global scale? No, it isn’t. It’s because earth’s climate system is an amazing complex system, and still far beyond the reach of human comprehension.

Is our climate really changing? And if that is so why could it be changing?

This map gives a good indication what happened over the last decades. Some areas are heating up, and some are cooling down. The Southern hemisphere cools down, the Northern hemisphere warms up. The global result is a warming up. The cause? | © 2016 by Buildreps

Own Research Versus Copy-Paste Believes

It is widely believed, also in the climate change discussion, that we can control the climate like in our cars by reducing CO2 emissions.

A glimpse on the historical data shows us that the temperatures changed constantly over the history. Who or what made this CO2 a few hundreds of thousands of years ago? Or is CO2 the effect and not the cause? Because that would explain more then vice versa.

Is our climate changing? And when that appears to be the case, what is the cause? Are we able to find out ourselves what is really going on? Yes, we are able to find out much more by ourselves than we tend to believe at first hand. But that requires a lot of work. Not many people are willing to do that for just a song.

The Northern hemisphere warms up, and the Southern hemisphere cools down. The net result of both, based on about 100 weather stations, is a global warming over a period of about 50 years. Is that true? | © 2016 by Buildreps

The Relation Between CO2 and Climate Change

The relation between CO2 and temperature is obvious. Whether we look at recent records, or at ice core data, the relation is always present.

The amount of sun spots and the Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) show a clear relation. But sun spots can only account for temperature swings up to plus/minus 1 degree Celsius.

What can we say more than the simple conclusion that CO2 is responsible for climbing temperatures? But is that conclusion really so simple? The relations are so obvious that only a fool dares to say that CO2 is not responsible for climate change.

Some cases of cause and effect are simple and obvious: does asbestos cause cancer, or does cancer causes asbestos? Because asbestos preceded the cancer, it is the cause.

But not all cases are so obvious. Does CO2 cause climate change or does climate change cause CO2?

Another case of cause and effect; are the wheels of a car responsible for the turning of the steering wheel or is it vice versa? There might be some odd cases where former situation counts. The steering mechanism is so tightly connected to eachother, that if we wouldn’t know better, we would have a very hard time to find out objectively what is the cause and what the effect. The tolerance in the system, when we change direction would be the only way to find out the cause.

This is called hysteresis.

The thing that lags behind would be ipso facto the effect. Grasping this principle is crucial, also for our climate.

The relation between CO2 and temperature change is obvious. Denying there is a relation equals to stupidity. But the real question must be; is CO2 the cause of temperature change? Or are we mistaking an obvious effect as the cause?


The Elephant in the Room: CO2 Lags Behind

If we analyse the data by zooming in we see that CO2 lags behind on temperatures. Who knows that? The climate scientists know about it, but ignore this problem stubbornly. It is the elephant in the room. A huge problem.

In a feedback mechanism the cause is always ahead of the effect. When the alleged cause is lagging behind we can ipso facto not speak of a feedback mechanism. When you want to make something responsible as the cause, but that “thing” is lagging behind we might have a problem on our hands in our theory. We could try to deal with it as a feedforward mechanism. It must look into the future. But these systems:

  • function only properly when effects of disturbances are predictable;
  • function only properly when they don’t generalize to other conditions;
  • destabilize when the system changes.

None of these three conditions comply to earth’s climate. The climate system is no feedforward mechanism, because the earth changed significantly over the many hundreds of millions of years, while the ‘setpoint’ temperature remained the same. It shows clearly we are dealing with a feedback mechanism where cause and effect follow each other.

To become aware of the fact that CO2 is lagging behind you must zoom in on the data. I collected the data from Vostok and Dome-C, and processed them. How many people have done this? Just a few. How many people just swallow what’s presented to them. Most. What if everything that’s presented to you is wrong?

It is crucial to grasp that if you want to know which is causing what, you need much data where the direction changes, like the graph below. The lag between input and output is called hysteresis.

In the graph below there is not one single example where CO2 is not lagging behind on changes of temperature.

Temperature Leads CO2 by an Average of About 2,000 Years

The Vostok Data from Antarctica show a clear relation between temperature and CO2 levels. The CO2 levels lag behind on temperatures about 2,000 years. In simple words, CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature changes by definition. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Positive and Negative Feedback Mechanisms

The Greenhouse effect is often presented as a mix of both positive and negative feedback mechanisms.

The essence of negative feedback is that such systems have a tendency to stabilize itself at a certain setpoint, or always swing around the setpoint, while positive feedback systems have a tendency to run out of control or to block completely.

There are many climate scientists who believe (note that it’s never been proven) that CO2 is the cause and the effect. Does anyone remember the bootstrap problem? The man who lifted himself from the swamp by pulling himself out by pulling on his boots. That’s an example where cause and effect fuse. But how does that work scientifically? This is the kind of ‘science’ climate scientists believe in without any solid foundations.

Did the climate ever run out of control? No. If we look at long term climate records, the temperatures always returned to a certain ‘setpoint’. Therefore we can say that there is a strong negative feedback mechanism at work in the climate system, much stronger than any possible positive feedback mechanism. Since CO2 lags on the temperatures it cannot be the cause. By definition not. It doesn’t help to construct amazing difficult theories. Never ignore Occam’s Razor!

CO2 lags behind on temperature and is therefore ipso facto not the cause. CO2 is the effect, and temperature is the cause. Now, what causes the temperatures to change then?

Reasons Why Temperatures Increase in Urbanized Zones

About 85% of the measuring stations are on land, while land covers just about 33% of the planet. It is not difficult to see that when we use these data we introduce major errors when we try to calculate an average global temperature.

About 50% of the stations which are used to measure global temperature are situated on airports. Many of these stations are incorrectly located, which means they collect heat from the exhaust of airplanes or from the tarmac runway. Since the air traffic has increased, the heat collection by the sensors from the jet exhausts increases as well. The short, intense heat bursts of the engines accumulate to serious errors in many of the measurements.

Most other stations are located in expanding urbanized areas. The measurements are affected by growing traffic and growing heat radiation of buildings over the last decennials. The explosive growth of air conditioners on buildings added an enormous heat source to cities that also influenced the measurements of urban situated weather stations.

The slick looking presentations made by computer programmers of NASA, the WMO and the IPCC are based on flawed material, like a flag on a mud barge. Unbelievable, isn’t it? You’re actually looking at a lie that looks awesome. Because it looks great it makes most people believe it is therefore true. The fact is that these climate models have no scientific value at all.

The measurements from some of the stations in large urbanized areas have to be corrected by other nearby remote stations before they can be used to present a global warming map. And even if we do this, we still present only the temperatures at ground level. We have no idea what happens high up in the atmosphere, and deep down in the oceans.

How Accurate Are the Temperature Measurements?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the amount of weather stations dropped

There is a striking relation between the dropping amount of weather stations and the global rising temperature. After the collapse of the USSR about half of the cold stations fell into disuse, and so the data as well.

dramatically from about 12,000 in 1990 to about 6,000 stations in 1995. In the same period the alleged global temperature started to rise like a rocket taking off.

  • Cause: the “cold” stations were gone from the statistics. Mainly the warm urbanized stations remained.
  • Effect: the statistics started to present a distorted picture of the global temperatures.

Is that science? Not really. We might call it science of the delusion. The current models as shown by NASA, WMO or the IPCC are not representing the truth.

Recently a far better way of collecting data has come into use: Remote Sensing Systems, or shortly RSS. Satellites gather data over large areas by using microwave sensors. This data is much more reliable and much better to process than the old fashioned weather stations where most of the climate models are still based on.

If you don’t trust the results I present here, you can verify it yourself at the site of Remote Sensing Systems. The data shown here is not made in just one afternoon. It is the result of original research and hard labour. If you want to know what is true and what is false you must be prepared to work hard for scratch. Or just believe the data I present here is correct.

Over the last two decades the WHOLE atmosphere unmistakeably cools down. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2 deg C over the last 20 years. | © 2016 by Buildreps

RSS Results Over the Last Two Decades

Zone (m)
+/- deg/yr
Net Ratio +/- deg/yr
This graph combines the 10 channels as shown above. When the channels are combined together in the right way, we see a small cooling down of the whole atmosphere. | © 2016 by Buildreps

The Atmosphere as a WHOLE is Cooling Down

Over the last two decades is the atmosphere as a whole unmistakeably cooling down. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2°C over the last 20 years. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere.

The greenhouse gases may trap partially the collected warmth in the troposphere, but when the temperature difference (ΔT) between the lower and higher atmosphere increases, the troposphere will cool down. The cause: the second law of thermodynamics (energy flows from hot to cold) is much stronger than the greenhouse effect.

The CO2 levels will still rise for the next decades to come, while the temperature curves of the ground stations will level off. The climate movement will be confused how that is possible, because they still believe that CO2 is responsible for warming. The fact will become clear that the data analysis was incomplete and infantile.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

An example map how the PDO works at one certain moment. It reverses every 30 years. A total cycle is therefore 60 years. It is still fairly unknown terrain.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

A fairly unknown phenomenon in the climate discussion is the PDO cycle, which offers a

PDO Cycles over the last century.

short-term (<60 yrs) explanation for the small temperature variations (and so for the release or absorption of CO2 by the oceans).

The Pacific Ocean covers a whopping 33% of earth’s surface. Even the minutest cooling or warming of this vast ocean has colossal impact on the release or absorption of CO2. That also explains why CO2 is lagging behind on the temperatures as shown above.

The most likely driver of the PDO are the Bretagnon cycles that oscillates over the much larger Halstatt cycles. Both these cycles are sun cycles.

What else is the best candidate for the temperature changes than the sun itself?

Midterm Hallstatt cycles and Short-term Bretagnon Wave Oscillation

The Hallstatt cycles and the Bretagnon wave cycles offer the best explanation of the PDO cycles. PDO at its turn causes absorption and release of CO2 of the oceans.

Where Does All the CO2 Come From?

The increase of CO2 from 290 ppm to about 400 ppm over the last 100 years is caused by the warming of the oceans. The oceans contain about 98% of all the carbon in the biosphere. The release of CO2 is partially caused by the above mentioned sun cycles, and by the rebound effect of the last (little) ice age.

What many people don’t know is that especially seawater is able to dissolve huge amounts of CO2. When temperatures of seawater drops it will dissolve more CO2. Logically, is this CO2 again released when the oceans temperature rise again. There is ipso facto a strong correlation between temperatures and CO2. But the water temperature of the ocean decides which levels of CO2 are released to the atmosphere.

This is in a nutshell what happened after the ice age ended. The ocean temperatures bounced back up again. On top of that accumulate a few midterm oscillations that cause constant small swings around the “setpoint”. This is why CO2 is lagging behind on temperatures.

The small CO2 variations we saw over the last three decennials are caused by ocean currents driven by a varying sun activity. The large CO2 increase over the last 12,000 years is the rebound effect of the last ice age.

CO2 Induced Climate Change Debunked in Just 12 Minutes

What Caused the Large Temperature Changes?

The big question is then: what caused the very large long-term temperature swings of the last glaciations?

  • Sun spots? No.
  • El Nino and El Nina? No.
  • Bretagnon oscillations? No.
  • PDO? No.
  • Hallstatt cycles? No.
  • Earth Crust Shifts? Yes!

Earth Crust Shifts are rejected and even ridiculed by geologists, while they offer the only true explanation for the very large long-term temperature swings around the “setpoint”. It is said there is no evidence for crustal shifts, while the paleomagnetic records provide the best evidence one can get. And what happens with ice core samples with the assumption that the crust was fixed? The interpretations will lead to conclusions of very large temperature swings, which in fact never took place. The location of the drill core changed location to another latitude, hence the other “readouts”.

Read the seemingly unrelated article on the main page and you might understand how it works. The article “Why Orientation of Pyramids Correlates to Ice Ages” proves that the last four glaciation cycles were in fact Earth Crust Shifts.

The only rational explanation for the ice ages are crustal shifts. They are caused by large eccentric orbits of earth around the sun (large tidal effects). That is the reason why ice ages relate so well to the Milankovitch cycles, which is also a confusion between cause and effect.

Is carbon induced climate change a hoax? Yes. A very big one too. So nothing appears what it seems to be!

This topic and many related topics will be covered in a book that’s currently in the making under the working title “Atlantis is Here”. The title refers to the idea that Atlantis was never gone. Only our own perception and consciousness temporarily left us, making it much harder for us to perceive the ultimate truths.

© 2016 by Buildreps

How Old Are Pyramids Around the World?

New research proves that most pyramids and temples around the world were built before fatal earth crust shifts. The orientation of large amounts of pyramids reveal former geographic poles. The proof has been delivered mathematically with a probability of 1 to 57.4 trillion that the finds and correlations are coincidental. Most pyramids are much older than always was assumed, way beyond our imagination.
Pyramids are believed to be not older than a few thousand years. They appear to be in some cases even older than 250,000 years, proven with a new mathematical theory. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Common Used Dating Methods

Determining the age of a pyramid is not as easy as it seems. Stones cannot be dated to determine the age of the structure, because what the researchers will find is the formation date of the rock material itself, and not when the stones were piled on top of each other.

Scientists pretend they have found a reliable way to date stone structures, while they only make associative, assumptive and subjective connections between the organic materials and the stone structures themselves. They claim it is reliable, but there’s no way for anyone to validate that claim. We cannot associate one thing to another with absolute certainty.

And that is directly the toughest problem in dating any stone structure: validation. There is not a single validation possible to back up any of the claims. Archaeology and history is mainly mythos, just stories without any reality value.

The most common way is to Carbon date organic artefacts left by ‘builders’ found inside and around pyramids, or organic materials that slipped between the stones. This method of dating is believed to be fairly accurate. It is often claimed as ‘evidence’ of the age of the structure.

How Are the Pyramids of Giza Dated?

The pyramids of Giza weren’t exclusively dated by dating excavated organic artefacts in and around the pyramids. It is also done by linking the inscriptions inside the pyramids with the era of the rulers and the architect Imhotep. But what if the inscriptions were a kind of graffiti left by kings who claimed the pyramids as their own?

How exciting these carved inscriptions might look, it doesn’t prove how old they really are. Christians claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on the ‘inscriptions’ in the bible. Is this ‘evidence’? For them it is. There are even scientists among them.

And we still have countless unsolved questions around the building methods that were used as well.

What counts for Giza, counts for all pyramids. They are real hard nuts to crack.

What is Evidence?

According to the Oxford dictionaries can evidence be defined as: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The words ‘scientific evidence’ are often misused to emphasize a certain belief or to label a certain theory.

We believe that the sun and the moon are the cause of tides on earth. But how do we know that for sure? The only evidence we have are clear patterns between the moon phases, orbits and the tides. From that we are able to develop a theory which predicts what will happen next. When we can verify it multiple times with our senses, we might become more certain the theory is complete and correct.

Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement. The foundations of pyramids are hundreds of thousands of years old: mathematically proven.

Classifying Pyramids in Time Frames

If we can relate pyramids around the world somehow, can we then classify them in a certain time frame? Yes, it appears we can. And this is the first step to take before diving into intimidating details. We can do that by analyzing the orientation patterns of pyramids spread around the world.

Analyzing the orientation of more than 500 pyramids and temples around the world, made it possible to classify the foundations – before or after the Great Flood(s). Floods and Ice Ages are one and the same event as you will see further on in this article. And it happened more than once in history.

The Great Flood and Pole Shifts

Is there evidence for a Deluge? Yes, there is in fact overwhelming evidence for a Great Flood. If we just look at the effects the melting water of the great ice sheets had on the coastlines some 12,000 years ago. All coastlines were flooded around the world because of this melting water.

The sea level rose about 120 meters. There are so many sunken cities all around the planet that it’s easy to understand they are older than 12,000 years. If you imagine that today, this would affect more than 60% of the Human population around the world.

Virtually all cultures speak about Great Floods in their sagas. Whatever scholars want to say about sagas, or even ridicule them, they hold a deep hidden truth in them. As I will show in this series of articles, the most probable cause of the floods were Earth Crust Shifts. Every shift marks the beginning of a new ice age.

It appears that because pyramids are square they can be used to find mathematical patterns in their orientation, especially when we examine them worldwide on a large scale. A jaw dropping pattern appears. And that is a breathtaking intensive math job, which is probably the reason no one has ever done it before. The patterns are overwhelming proof for the locations of former geographic poles.

  • Note: with North pole is always meant the geographical North pole. The theory of Earth Crust Shifts is not dealing about the magnetic poles. The geographical pole is the rotation axis of the earth.

Orientation of Giza

Giza is oriented to our current geo North pole and therefore constructed AFTER the Great Flood. They are older than 4,500 years and younger than 110,000 years. The Giza pyramids are with such a stupendous accuracy oriented to the North pole, that deviations beyond 0.06 degrees are not measurable.

Stupendous Accuracy

The statement that the pyramids of Giza are oriented to the current North pole (cardinally oriented) doesn’t knock people off their feet anymore. More important to know is that Giza is oriented to the current (geographic) North pole and therefore built after the Great Flood.

A Great Flood which was caused by an Earth Crust Shift that ushered the beginning of a the last ice age

There’s no doubt about the classification of these pyramids: they were built after the latest crustal shift. Which can be interpreted as after the Great Flood. The time frame we have here to classify Giza is between the current estimations, 4,500 years, and 110,000 years.

It is a contribution to the builders to orient such a big construction with great precision. It’s orientation is within 0.06° precise to our current geo pole, and shows a mathematical knowledge which rivals those of today.

Did you spot the pyramid of Visoko? It’s in the middle of the picture. It’s perfectly oriented to the current North pole, and therefore younger than 110,000 years.

Pyramid at Visoko, Bosnia

Most scientists cannot believe that the pyramid of Visoko is actually a pyramid, but the orientation of these pyramids to the current geographic poles is so precise, that it is hard to believe it’s not a pyramid. Of course, if it is a pyramid it smashes the precious constructed paradigm to pieces. In fact, most people want to protect that.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

The odds are less than 1 to 500,000 for this combination to be coincidental:

  • appearance of a pyramidal structure,
  • orientation to the cardinals,
  • two perpendicular faces which are easily to spot from satellite images.

So, it is unlikely we are looking at a coincidental configuration of nature. Science is about facts, and the coincidences are too small to be just a mountain. So, keep on diggin’ guys!

This pyramid can be classified as after the Great Flood, because they are oriented to the current cardinals – our current geo poles. Osmanagić has profound evidence they are older than 10,000 years.

Finding Our Current Geo Pole: How Triangulation Works

The orientation of the pyramids of Giza and the pyramid of Ping of Han (one of the 12 oriented to current North) intersect at the current North pole. They belong to the same time frame.
This pyramid in China is oriented under an angle of 8 degrees (352 degrees) to Greenland.

Pyramids at Xian, China

This is a collection of serious pyramids which are anxiously protected by the Chinese government.

It are pyramids, that’s for sure. It took scientists many centuries to figure this out.

What are the Chinese afraid of? That we find out that our ancestors were smarter than we think, or they were skimming the earth ?

The pyramids in China are massively oriented in just a few different configurations:

It is not difficult to see that these pyramids were NOT pointed to the current geo North pole, but to Greenland. Were this pyramids built when Greenland was actually located at the North Pole?
  • Oriented to the current North pole;
  • Oriented at an angle of about -8° (to Greenland);
  • Oriented at an angle of about -14 to -15°

Why are they oriented like this? The precision of the ones which are oriented to the current geo pole is so precise that the other ones that were oriented towards to Greenland and further weren’t just coincidental orientations. It was clearly done to serve a specific purpose. Were they oriented to the ancient cardinals, a very long time ago? We will show you that was the case.

The 8 degrees oriented Chinese pyramids cluster on a massive scale to the same area as the pyramids of Latin America, and form a massive mathematical node. The odds for this node to be formed coincidentally are 1 to 20.4 trillion!

Orientation of Chinese Pyramids

These different orientations of the Chinese pyramids imply that this culture might have survived a shifting geographical pole. Crustal displacements moved the geographical North pole on Greenland to its current location. Greenland moved to an area where it would start to melt very slowly.

There are pyramids in China that were built before the Great Flood and after the Great Flood. This cultures somehow survived it, adapted to it, and built another series of pyramids oriented to the new, current geo pole.

This would mean that the ones oriented to the current North pole are of the same time frame as the ones of Giza, younger than 110,000 years. But the other ones oriented under an angle of 8° are therefore older than 110,000 years.

Is this why this culture is so advanced in medicine, religion, philosophy and many other areas, because it’s so old and the traditions survived the Great Flood?

The whole perspective becomes more interesting when we go to Mexico.

Locations of Some Chinese Pyramids

Oriented to Current Pole (0°)
Oriented to Greenland (8°)
34°23’53″N / 108°42’44″E
34°21’48″N / 108°37’51″E
34°23’26″N / 108°44’21″E
34°21’43″N / 108°38’26″E
34°24’03″N / 108°45’53″E
34°20’18″N / 108°34’10″E
The pyramids of the Moon (topleft) and the Sun (bottom) at Teotihuacan. They are oriented to Greenland as well.

Pyramids of Teotihuacan, Mexico

One of the most important aspects of scientific evidence is that it is reproducible and verifiable.

When we draw a line from the pyramids in China (oriented at 8°) and the pyramids of Teotihuacan in Mexico, the lines will intersect each other on Greenland. This is reproducible and verifiable by anyone who has access to Google Earth. The question we could ask ourselves: what could this mean?

Read in this case the article “Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?” again, and the penny might drop that the pyramids of Mexico and these ones of China are both constructed before the Great Flood. These pyramids were built when the North pole was still on Greenland, and that is a very long time ago.

The crust appears to shift like Hapgood suggested but in another way, that is to say only latitudinal.

The cultures that built these pyramids are much older than we ever imagined possible. But that would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

How Teotihuacan and Pyramid Wu of Han Intersect at Greenland

The orientation of the pyramids in Mexico and China intersect each other exactly on the former North pole on Greenland. This is one of the former geo North poles. By using this method 4 former geo poles are proven.

Verification Data of Intersection Point

China (Wu of Han)
34.338° N / 108.5695° E
352° (360-8)
Mexico (Sun Pyramid)
19.695° N / 98.845° W
Intersection Point
73.546°N, 043.837°W

The More Intersections, the More Proof

Just a few intersections like shown above proves nothing. It could be just luck. To rule out any coincidence, the data of about 500 ancient constructions and sites are examined and extensively processed. The results are staggering. It smashes all believes about the ancient past in relation to the Earth to pieces.

Since there was already a hunch that Greenland was once located on the North pole, we drew a line over Greenland from the current North pole to the current South pole, at a longitude of 45°W, and calculated roughly the amount of intersections with that reference line. Later is the process the exact longitude of this line was calculated to be at a longitude of 47.1°W. The results along this line were much better.

Former geographic poles reveal themselves sharply at a few locations on Greenland. The probability of this event can be calculated by using the binomial formula. With the used data set, and with the amount of found intersections, the probability on mere chance is less than 0.000000001%. The probability that it was done on purpose, and that it was therefore the former geographic North pole is certain for more than 99.999999999%.

In scientific terms: we can be sure this is true, which has a very deep impact. As you will see, a puzzle starts to fall into place. You won’t find a research that can outperform this outcome.

The Earth’s crust has shifted in the past, when the civilizations who built the pyramids were already present. We are not speaking of a few thousand years ago. We are speaking of periods of hundreds of thousands of years. It’s all in the numbers, and cannot be refuted nor debunked by anyone.

The Earth Crust Has Shifted Multiple Times in the Past

We can safely claim that Greenland was on the North pole, without having any geological knowledge or evidence. We don’t even have to go anywhere. We don’t need to walk on pyramids, or on glaciers, or to be a specialist in any of these areas. We even don’t need a shred of ‘evidence’. We can now understand why Greenland is melting, and why we find so many mysterious sites around the world, and why the cultures were vanished.

In the book that is currently in the making under the working title “Atlantis is Here”, the location of this intersection line has been calculated at a precise location of 47.091°W, for the ease of communication 47.1°W. It is in this article too far fetched to explain how this figure is accomplished but the results from the calculations along this line deliver even more amazing insights.

The book won’t expose you, like scientists love to do, to intimidating mathematical equations which forms the basis of this new theory. But if you are interested in it, there will be extensive appendices in the book dedicated to the mathematics behind it together with tons of data.

Reference Line to Measure the Amount of Intersections

When we examine the amount of intersections with the North-South line, we find the former North pole. For the book “Atlantis is Here” the line has been calculated at 47.091 degrees. It delivers 100% proof. Mathematical proof.

© 2015, 2016 by Buildreps


Lost Civilizations and Earth Crust Shifts

Life is fragile, and in the same time indestructible. Huge catastrophes swept away life on Earth many times. Gravity and motion are the main drivers of life on earth, but also the main cause of death and extinction.

The Theory of Earth Crust Displacements

After reading the title, you might ask “do we have earth crust displacements then?” The answer on this question will be given in this very comprehensive, and maybe from time to time tough article.

The theory of earth crust displacements has been dumped into the corners of pseudo science in the early 60s after Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics was confirmed by evidence found on the ocean floors.

Professor Charles Hapgood claimed that the earth’s crust, which is relatively thin and light (part of the lithosphere), could shift over the hot, molten magma layer (astenosphere) on which it is believed to be floating.

It was later said by scientists that there is no force strong enough to make such radical movements of the crust possible, and that only the very slow tectonic plate movements forms the earth’s crust, and thus the climatic events.

Solar heat at high latitudes is reduced in two ways: light travels a longer path through the atmosphere AND the incoming light is spread over a larger surface.

The Ruling Theories Result in Too Many Contradictions

At first hand seems the current ruling scientific view viable for most of the phenomena we witness on earth.

The geological record provides irrefutable evidence that dramatic climate fluctuations have occurred throughout our planet’s history.

But only when we allow ourselves to look deep enough, we see too many contradictions and illogicalities.

When we look deeper we will find phenomena that make radical movements possible, which is a scary idea, but there’s no indication it will happen soon.

Charles Hapgood delivered a lifetime achievement with his book Earth’s Shifting Crust – A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science. His book is interesting to read, written in simple language. Sometimes is his style a bit wordy, but never without tons of data to backup his theory. On the other hand seems his style necessary to lead you out of the ruling paradigm. To show how things really are.

Geological evidence suggests that the climate had very mild periods, virtually from pole to pole. But how is that even possible when the sun is considered to be the only heat source? How can the sun heat the poles? This idea seems to be only possible when the earth would be heated from within, through convection.

Hapgood’s conclusions show enough reasons to do profound research on this issue, to find the truth.

The eccentricity of the last ice age, more than a thousand miles off, is shouting for a rational explanation, while science is having a party about carbon caused global warming. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Radical Changes Require Radical Forces or Vice Versa

While reading Hapgood’s book, you become convinced that earth crust displacements are the only credible explanation for many phenomena like:

  1. the sudden waxing and waning of glaciations,
  2. the eccentricity of recent ice caps in relation to the geo poles,
  3. that Greenland was about 450,000 years ago really green, and covered in rich flora,
  4. the sudden extinction of flora and fauna,
  5. the sudden emergence of new species.

Hapgood’s treatise is much more detailed and profound then just the few actualities shown here. His style of research was original, intelligent, and very controversial. You can also call it out-of-the-mainstream ideas.

Ice depositions grow usually centric around the pole, unless a phenomena like the Warm Gulfstream makes it acentric like you can see on the North pole in March. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why the Eccentric Ice Age Requires an Explanation

When we look at the North pole in March, we see that the Warm Gulfstream warms the whole region denoted by N3, and partially N2 and N4. The Gulfstream is very powerful.

What would happen when there wasn’t a Warm Gulfstream present?

The ice formation around the pole would then become almost symmetric, and the Greenland Sea and Northern Atlantic would be completely frozen in Winter.

One could try to argue that during the last ice age there must have been a Warm Gulfstream along the coasts of Alaska and Eastern Russia, pushing itself through the Bering Strait, making this ice formation around the pole acentric. But the seaway between Alaska and Russia is far to narrow to pass through a Gulf Stream large enough to cause such a large asymmetry. The Bering Strait had to be at least 8 times wider.

It is crucial to understand that energy always flows from high to low, and not vice versa. The Warm Gulfstream is running in that region because it is a consequence of the second Law of Thermodynamics – restoring an energetic imbalance after a crustal dislocation. This process is still running today – the melting of Greenland.

The Warm Gulfstream will decrease in intensity after the situation at the North pole is returned to normal, and that is after the Greenland ice sheet is almost completely molten, which will still take about 4,000 years.

The amount of incoming solar energy at the poles depends strongly on latitude AND season.

Why Science is Not Always Rational

One of the most serious dilemmas in Palaeontology is that Antarctica once had abundant flora and fauna, already 150 million years after the splitting up of Pangaea.

Science tells us that Antarctica was at its current location at that time. This leads us to the question: where was the solar light coming from to make this abundant lifeforms possible? Mirrors in space maybe?

No, scientists came up with an even more ludicrous theory.

During six months there is hardly any solar light on Antarctica. The Milankovitch cycles are much too weak to explain anything regarding this issue (making the South pole lightly turn to the sun).

Scientists came up with the idea how trees and plants must have adapted to an almost complete lack of sun light. Hm, without photosynthesis? How?

Why don’t we see this adaptation happening today? Why do we still have taigas, tundras, and steppes and no tropical rain forests in Northern Siberia or Alaska? Or why don’t we see any trees growing on top of the Himalayas?

What we see happening here is that if one possibility is moved from the scene – crustal dislocations – they are replaced by the only left possibility – plants growing without solar light. These are irrational, unreliable, and adhoc theories. The tragic is that the general public believes these fantasies as to be true, which are broadcasted by the mainstream media, inflated with beautiful animations, like fairytales for adults.

There is no other way to explain these facts than with crustal dislocations.

Why Two Theories MUST be Combined

Hapgood’s ideas were immediately dismissed after discovering the mechanics of plate tectonics, because it could possibly explain in one blow:

  • the formation of ice caps on India, China and Africa during the Pagaean period,
  • abundant tropical rainforests where now the Sahara desert is,
  • the tempered climate, even sub tropical flora found once on Antarctica,
  • the subtropical flora found once in Siberia,
  • geological evidence of seasonal changes, everywhere, in different layers, which proves the existence of climatic zones through earth’s history.

What geology then tends to forget is that this is only a possible explanation if the Pangaean continent moved over the globe as a whole. How could there otherwise have been ice caps formed on Africa, China and India when Pangaea was still one continent? There is in fact no way to get around the subject of crustal dislocations.

Moreover, the very slow processes of plate tectonics don’t account for the radical phenomena 1 to 5 mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no other way to explain all phenomena with two theories:

  • Slow plate tectonics
  • Radical crustal dislocations

But saying the words “earth crust shifts” in a geology class is like swearing in a church. It has similarities with saying “revolution for the people” during a meeting of the conservative tea party. This may and cannot exist!

The Pangaea Theory.

More About the Pangaea Theory

The Pangaea theory was devised to explain how species migrated between the different continents.

Alfred Wegener, who was the (official) founder of the idea, saw that continents once could have fitted into eachother, like you can see on the photo on the right. It is believed to be 250 million years ago.

It is thought to be a cyclical event. Meaning, there could have been more “Pangaeas” before this one.

It is a simple, visually based theory that comes at hand, for the palaeontologists, to explain many things, like in this case the migration of species. Geologists later confirmed the theory after finding fault lines on ocean floors, driven apart by forces from within earth.

Why the Pangaea Theory is Incomplete

The theory tells us that Pangaea started to break apart, but not why and how it broke apart. A theory that lacks to explain why or how it happened is incomplete.

The theory can also be used at will. For example, it explains how different species could spread over the continents. But it can also explain why we find similar dolmens or pyramids on every continent, or name any other similar cultural phenomenon. Why is that? Because humans could spread all over the world and built their stone structures when Pangaea was still intact?

But because Pangaea was 250 million years ago, it is then dismissed as impossible. Which is using a theory according to whether it suits the inventors. This shows an inherent falsity at the core of science, which might be caused by the compartmentalization of science. Spreading of species is explained, while spreading of cultural similarities remain unexplained.

When the spreading of dolmens and pyramids all over the world is regarded as coincidence, why can’t we then regard spreading of species around the world as coincidence?

Continental drift is a fact, but Pangaea is an idea that cannot be verified by evidence or by any mathematical model. It is an immature visually based idea.

The Framework for Any Glaciation Theory

Hapgood mentions in his book, William Lee Stokes, a well known geologist and palaeontologist, who provided a framework that every theory has to meet when it wants to explain glaciations. A theory that neglects one or more items on this list can be regarded as unviable or incomplete.

  1. An initiating event or condition.
  2. A mechanism for cyclic repetitions or oscillations within the general period of glaciation.
  3. A terminating condition or event.
  4. It should not rely upon unprovable, unobservable, or unpredictable conditions when well-known or more simple ones will suffice.
  5. It must solve the problem of increased precipitation with colder climate.
  6. The facts call for a mechanism that either increases the precipitation or lowers the temperature very gradually over a period of thousands of years.

Hapgood believed that the theory of ice deposition at the poles could make the crust shift. Maybe it can play part in an increasing imbalance of the crust, but it cannot be the main cause of crustal dislocations. Why not?

Hammer throwing is a good example where eccentric forces are used to move an object from A to B.

Why Ice Deposition at the Poles Cannot Cause Large Crustal Dislocations

Asymmetrical ice depositions around the poles cause theoretically very large tangential pointed forces.

Since earth is a sphere, these eccentric forces can theoretically, when they occur around the poles, and are large enough, shift the crust (lithosphere) over the syrupy magma layer (asthenosphere).

Hapgood believed that the last ice ages at the Northern hemisphere caused the earth crust to shift. This idea was also formed after looking at the growing eccentricity on Antarctica.

But Hapgood’s theory is deeply conflicting in itself, and seems to contain a circular reasoning:

A) If we look at the ice sheet during the last ice age, with the idea that the geo pole was where it currently is, we see a very large eccentricity (see illustration above). This large eccentricity could be, according to Hapgood, responsible for a crustal shift.

B) But how came this pole from Greenland to its current location? Because we cannot seem to solve this large eccentricity other then positing the thesis that the pole was on Greenland a priori, which has been proved by mathematics by now.

C) How could it then cause a crustal shift? Because the eccentric forces were neutralizing eachother when the pole was on Greenland.

D) How can it be that Antarctica was moving to the geo pole? It was then making a counter movement, and proving that the contrary was happening.

Milankovitch Cycles – A More Consistent Clue

Without any doubt was Hapgood right about radical, violent crustal dislocations. But his theory was incomplete, and moreover, it simply ignored many contemporary, clearly proven theories.

Milankovitch, for example, discovered already in the 1920s that the orbital cycles – eccentricity, obliquity, and precession – seemed to be in accordance with glacial cycles.

This lead to a typical ‘short circuit’ theory that the Milankovitch cycles in itself were responsible for the ice ages, although science still very poorly understands why Milankovitch’s cycles influence the climate on earth.

A Large ‘e’ Stands For Large Annual Gravitational Swings

The larger the eccentricity becomes, the larger the gravitational changes become. These fluctuations ‘massage’ the earth, causing heat to accumulate in earth’s interior. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why Eccentricity is the Main Key to Understand Glaciations

The only factor in the Milankovitch cycles that seems to influence the amount of received solar energy is the changing eccentricity of earth’s orbit.

A sphere, which the earth is, doesn’t receive less energy when it is tilted or when it wobbles in any way. It still receives the same amount of solar energy. Eccentricity seems then to be the only key left to explain glaciations.

And even this phenomenon, when regarded over a period of one year doesn’t show changing incoming solar energy. Why not? Because the average distance to the sun doesn’t change over one year. The Aphelion a(1+e) and the Perihelion a(1-e) always result in 2 × a, meaning that the net result of collected solar energy over one years stays the same. And since glaciations cover periods of tens of thousands of years, there’s no way to explain how the amount of incoming solar energy ever can change.

We can easily see there’s a huge dilemma here, because the curve fittings of the Milankovitch cycles and glaciation cycles show a perfect match, although no one is able to explain them as explained above.

But when we allow ourselves to look deep enough we can see the logic behind this mechanism. But we must leave all the mainstream ideas behind us.

Temperature Proxies (δ18O) and Eccentricity

D18O records found on the ocean floors are a very good proxies for temperature indicators of the past. The similarities between D18O and eccentric orbit is crystal clear. C=cold, W =warm. | © 2016 by Buildreps

What is the Relation Between δ18O and Eccentricity?

The δ18O samples (Foraminifera shells) taken from the ocean floor serve as very good temperature indicators. It is not difficult to overlook the similarity of patterns between the two curves. The curves have to be well superimposed to make the similarities clear.

We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the lows of the black curve.

δ18O is somewhat tricky. Low values stand for high temperatures and vice versa.

The explanation behind this mechanism can be explained as: If the eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun runs above a certain value, the temperature proxies start to drop radically (temperature goes up).

But why? Since the annual solar energy doesn’t change, it remains a mystery.

What Paleontologists measured was not the real temperature, but the proxy of that temperature. When the proxy (the shells) were moved from one region (latitude) to another, this is not visible, and could easily be misinterpreted as a temperature change.

What in fact happened is that the crust shifted as a response to the increasing tidal forces that were an effect of a large eccentric orbit. The proxies reacted on that crustal shift. A change in latitude means a change in temperature.

This possibility has always been ignored by both geologists and paleontologists.

Another Proxy – δD and Eccentricity

The relations between eccentricity in earth’s orbit and glaciations are clear, although there are some pattern breaking events as well that also requires an explanation. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Another Proxy

Another proxy from the ice cores of Dome-C on Antarctica shows the same kind of pattern, although this proxy works different, it also relates to temperature change.

We see that the highs of the red curve correspond to the highs of the blue curve.

It is clear, and not very difficult to verify, that the eccentricity of earth’s orbit triggers an event that is interpreted by scientist as a glaciation, while it was a crustal shift.

It is not unthinkable though that a large eccentric orbit ‘massages’ earth’s interior more strongly, so that the earth starts to warm up from the inside. Convection from the inside might warm the crust a little. It can also make the syrupy astenosphere more fluid, which might cause the crust to ‘moonwalk’ over the magma, under influence of a large tidal oscillation. One thing is sure – science really has to get to work, and stop this silly whining over carbon induced warming.

The smaller temperature changes in between the large peaks can be easily explained by many less impactive events like solar activity, Heinrich events, changes in ocean circulation, etcetera.

Additional Effects – Annual Extreme Weathering

Because the earth axis is tilted a large eccentricity has profound effects on temperature changes. | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why These Extremes Cause Crustal Shifts

When the eccentricity of earth’s orbit increases, it doesn’t influence the annual amount of received solar energy, but it does influence gravitation between the earth and the sun significantly.

  1. The larger the eccentricity becomes, the larger the temperature differences over one year. To understand the effects, look at deserts – hot at daylight, cold at night, resulting in erosive, rock splitting conditions.
  2. Depending of the tilt and precession during an extreme eccentricity, some parts of the globe are subjected to more extremes than other parts. Resulting in local expansion (heating) and local contraction (cooling).
  3. The closer earth gets to the sun, the harder the sun is pulling. This causes extreme tidal effects.
  4. Earth’s rotation varies with the distance to the sun, which in extreme cases, like with our moon, can even result in tidal locking. This effect generates much internal heat, because earth is not one chunk of rock but consists of layers, solid and fluid. This effect is, even today, very poorly understood by modern science.

Ironically seems this latter effect to be the main driver of crustal dislocations. Once the tidal forces are large enough, the lithosphere is able to break loose from its syrupy under layer.

This phenomenon might also trigger dislocations of the outer (liquid metal) core, a phenomenon that we currently witness as a wandering magnetic pole.

How Earth’s Rotation Currently Varies

The annual variation in rotation speed is the result of the current eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun. It is 2 milliseconds per year.

Current Fluctuations of Earth’s Rotation

The graph above shows how annually the earth’s rotation varies just a little bit. This variation is induced by the changing distance to the sun, which is also determined by the collective momentum of our entire solar system.

When the earth gets somewhat closer to the sun, the rotation slows down with about 2 milliseconds. When it moves further away, the rotation speed goes up again.

The overall loss in speed, visible in the graph by the overall downward trend, is energy that is transferred to the moon. The result is that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth, while increasing its rotational speed.

This coherent system is mathematically amazing complex, and still very poorly understood by science.

The variation in rotation speed seems very tiny, but it represents an amazing amount of energy: 9.93·1021 Joule [1]. The total global energy consumption in 2015 is estimated to be about 6.5·1020 Joule. This unnoticeable small fraction in Earth’s rotational variations is about 15 times more powerful than the total global energy consumption.

Sometimes you have to see things in their true perspectives.

[1]: Erot = ½·I·(ω12– ω22); I = 8.04×1037kg·m2; ω1 = 7.2934778604×10-5 rad/s; ω2 = 7.2934780297×10-5 rad/s

Earth’s Inner is a Composition of Layers

Earth’s solid inner layers are hydraulic connected by two liquid layers. The solid parts can move separately from each other when the tidal forces become large enough. | © 2016 by Buildreps
The Earth’s layered structure: 1=inner core (solid); 2=outer core (liquid); 3=lower mantle (solid); 4=upper mantle (syrupy); 5=lithosphere (solid); 6=crust (solid, part of the lithosphere)

Rotation Speed of the Earth Varies

Once you understand that the rotation speed of the earth partially depends on the distance to the sun, it is not difficult to see that this influences the force on the different shells of earth’s inner.

Many people regard the earth as one solid object, while it consists of three solid shells that are rotational connected to eachother by two liquid intermediate layers.

All three solid components will react differently to large tidal changes. This happens when the eccentricity of earth’s orbit is large.


Because their densities are very different. The inner core is very heavy, while the crust is very light. This results in different reactions to an eccentric orbit.

Eccentricity and glaciations are clearly one and the same.

The Ultimate Cause of Crustal Shifts

When the tidal forces are large enough, one or more of the solid layers can lose its connections with one of the liquid layers. This happens when one of the liquid layers is not able to transfer the momentum between one of the solid layers.

And this causes the earth crust to shift.

As with a spinning top, when a force is exercised in one direction, it will react perpendicular to that force. This is why we see that the crust has shifted mainly in latitudinal direction, and not in longitudinal direction. This is why Greenland was on the North pole as proved in the former articles.

The most inner core is solid and very heavy, it won’t react as fiercely to tidal fluctuations as the very light and brittle outer shell, the crust. The crust is connected to a tough syrupy asthenosphere that won’t loose grip that easy.

We are a fortunate species. The next peaks in the Milankovitch cycles are still very far away – in about 150,000 years is the next earth crust shift expected.

Science is currently unable to model anything that comes even close to show how this amazing complex process actually works.

More articles will follow on this issue, going deeper into this topic.

© 2016 by Buildreps

First published: March 2, 2016

Why is Greenland Covered in Ice?

Greenland is covered with a massive ice sheet while Alaska, Canada and Russia are not. Why? ‘N’ is where the current North pole is located.

Why is There an Ice Sheet on Greenland?

Greenland is the largest island on earth, situated east of Canada, between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. About 80% of the island is covered by the massive Greenland Ice Sheet with an average thickness of about 1,667 meters. If this ice sheet would melt completely off, the sea level will rise with about 7 meters (23 feet).

Drill samples have shown that the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 110,000 years old. Other estimates claim that the ice sheet is 400,000 years old. How did this ice sheet become so thick, while the surrounding countries with mountain ranges, like Alaska, Canada and Russia, have no ice sheet? Even Iceland isn’t fully covered in ice. Moreover is the exact age of the ice sheet unclear. What do we really know?

This article will explore this issue partially which will be published in a series of articles.

Whiteland or Greenland?

Where the name Greenland comes from, while it’s completely white, is unsure. But it is said to have come from early Norwegian settlers.

According to the Icelandic sagas, Erik the Red named it Greenland in an attempt to lure more settlers in search of land and the promise of a better life. It was maybe also a kind of incantation to make the cold island more livable.

Sages and legends often contain parts of some truth. The current scientific view is that Greenland was actually green some 450,000 years ago. That’s quite some time for a legend to bridge, isn’t it?

What happened to Greenland that it’s now covered with an insane thick icecap?

Why the mountain ranges on Canada, Alaska, Russia, and Scandinavia are not covered with a similar ice sheet as on Greenland has never been sufficiently explained. | © Buildreps 2016-2017

Models Say There Can’t be Ice

Greenland’s ice sheet has puzzled scientists for many decades, which have led to complete ridiculous, even unscientific theories. Geoscientists who are in the search for a logical and consistent explanation are limited by their own set of beliefs and institutions. This limitation leads sometimes to the strangest conclusions.

There have been many reports in the media about the effects of global warming on the Greenland ice sheet, but there is still great uncertainty as to why there is an ice sheet on Greenland at all.

There are mathematical models that cover Greenland with an ice sheet, but they also cover the other continents in ice as well. There’s no model possible that covers only Greenland.

What changed in Earth’s history to make this happen?

Latest Official Version

The reason for that [the ice sheet] is the interaction of three tectonic processes. For one thing, Greenland had to be lifted up, such that the mountain peaks reached into sufficiently cold altitudes of the atmosphere. Secondly, Greenland needed to move sufficiently far northward, which led to reduced solar irradiation in winter. Thirdly, a shift of the Earth axis caused Greenland to move even further northward.

The Fact is: There Are no Conclusive Models Found Yet

There are in fact several competing theories why Greenland is covered in ice, ranging from:

  • changes in ocean circulation,
  • the increasing height of the Rocky Mountains,
  • changes in the Earth’s orbit,
  • natural changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

The University of Bristol, funded by the British Antarctic Survey, claims that none of the posited theories can account for the thick ice sheet of Greenland. Even the Milankovitch cycles are nowhere near strong enough to explain the ice coverage of Greenland.

While the results of the computations suggest that climatic shifts associated with changes in ocean circulation and tectonic uplift did affect the amount of ice cover, and that the ice waxed and waned with changes in the Earth’s orbit, none of these changes were large enough to contribute significantly to the long-term growth of the Greenland ice sheet.

Their conclusion was that the huge ice cap could only grow when Greenland would be “roofed” with a giant bubble of low CO2 levels covering the whole island. Of course, that sounds reasonable. How to transport all the vaporized seawater to Greenland without interfering with the CO2 bubble? How did that bubble came there? Which mechanism kept it in place for over hundreds of thousands of years? Not a very scientific approach.

In other words: none of the current theories appear to be valid.

Try to be honest to yourself. Everyone who has a good intuition sees immediately that it’s strange that on the Northern hemisphere only Greenland is covered with an ice sheet. Not just a bit of ice. A massive ice layer, while there’s nothing on Alaska, Canada and Russia.

Are Temperature Fluctuations Correctly Interpreted?

Earth’s temperatures have never been constant. But when the reference points are dislocated the interpretations are most probably false. Temperature change corresponds to the eccentric orbit of earth around the sun. | © 2016 by Buildreps

No Ice Sheets on Other Mountain Ranges

It isn’t a logical starting point in any case. The ice sheet around the Greenland Summit, that’s about in the middle of the sheet, is about 3,000 meters thick. The altitude is also about 3,000 meters. The mountains must have been pushed down how much? At which point are they trading places, or was it a slow sliding scale?

If that would be the main driver, why are there no fat ice sheets on the Brooks Mountain Range, the Innuitian Mountains, the Mackenzie Mountains, the Ural Mountains, the Central Siberian Plateau, and the Verkhoyansk range? Even the mountains on Svalbard aren’t covered in thick ice sheets.

Scientists will probably think of very difficult explanations for this, but they then tend to forget about Occam’s Razor. The simplest explanation with the least assumptions is the best theory.

Why no Ice Sheets on Alaska, Canada or Russia?

The latest official theory why Greenland is covered in ice, includes the assumption that Greenland was covered with high mountains. These high mountains were formed by tectonic forces pointed towards the location of Greenland. The relative thin crust was easier foldable which made the formation of mountains easier.

The mountain peaks would start to accumulate an ice sheet after Greenland shifted 18° further up North to its current location, according to this new theory. It cannot be stated clear enough that this is completely irrational science.

Why would only Greenland shift Northward? And the rest stays in place? Seriously?

Why this accumulation of ice didn’t happen in similar regions in Alaska, Canada or Russia, where the much colder land climate even more encourages the build-up of an ice sheet, remains completely out of the scope of this theory.

This theory seems to be rather adhoc because it doesn’t cover the complete subject of ice sheet formation around the Arctic.

Are Earth Crust Shifts Possible?

The late Professor Hapgood first coined the idea of Earth Crust Displacements in 1958, and even published complete books and theories around this issue. Hapgood also explained how crustal shifts were powered, namely that the deposition of ice around the poles caused eccentricities. These eccentricities cause a centrifugal force on the crust and could lead to shifts.

This view is though inconsistent, and not completely in line with what we see happening today at Antarctica. The centrifugal forces caused by the ice sheet on Antarctica today is about 2 times larger than the forces during the last ice age. We would be shifting as we speak. So, what could power crustal shifts is unsure, but it could be driven by a combination of inner and outer events.

The fact is that crustal shifts are the only possibility to cover Greenland with an ice sheet, and that we are now looking at the remains of crustal shifts. But to claim how this works is yet too early.

Never exclude anything in advance. Earth Crust Shifts must be part of the vocabulary of any sane geologist to explain events that otherwise become unexplainable. Looking for the cause of the event is yet another thing, which might be even much harder.

The formation of our world is not only done by one big crustal force, but at least by two:

  • Earth Crust Displacements
  • Tectonic Plate Movements

How Ice Forms Around the Poles

Ice has the natural tendency to grow and to melt approximately concentrically around the poles. This tendency is not influenced by any wobble, since this wobble still occurs equally around the geographical pole.

The ice sheet on Greenland shouldn’t be there if the geographical pole always had been were it is today. There is simply no scientific explanation possible without the introduction of a radical shifting mechanism of the Earth’s crust.

Understanding why the ice sheet was formed on Greenland helps us to understand the possible response of the ice sheet to future climate changes, and if the current climate change is completely wrongly interpreted.

Ice Formation is Concentric Around Poles

Ice forms concentric around the poles, unless there is a rational mechanism that makes it slightly acentric . | © 2016 by Buildreps

Why Ice Formation is Concentric

The North pole map at the end of the Winter shows a large amount of sea ice which is almost centrical formed around the geographical pole. In winter time, the sea ice in the Arctic ocean gets trapped between Canada, Russia and Greenland (N1), and forms a dense pack of sea ice. This pack of ice can’t go anywhere, while the ice between Greenland and Norway floats into the Greenland Sea and the Norwegian sea, and finally melts. The Gulf Stream plays a major role in this process.

This is the reason why on the North pole the ice is not as symmetrically accumulated as on the South pole.

When we look at Antarctica, we see that the sea ice around Antarctica can freely float away into the Southern part of the oceans, and is almost symmetrically formed around the geographical South pole.

The slight acentric accumulation of ice on the South pole is caused by the predominant ice mass in the sectors S2 and S3, which is a major chilling factor in the formation of local sea ice.

The former glaciation cycle was centered around Greenland | © 2016 by Buildreps

Was the Former North Pole on Greenland?

The center point of the last ice age was on Greenland. Greenland was located on the North pole due to crustal dislocation. That is the reason why only Greenland is still covered in ice. The reason why the ice sheet on Greenland is melting, is because it has been shifted about 1,500 km South, from its former polar position to its current position.

The ice sheet melts so slowly because Greenland still lies for a great deal within the polar circle. The outer edges of the sheet are melting much faster then the elevated centre near Summit. The overall balance is negative.

The only sure conclusion we can draw is that ice always forms symmetrically around the pole, unless there is a reason, a strong mechanism, that makes it asymmetric.

Which mechanism could have been strong enough to cause such an asymmetry during the last ice age? Now try to keep the explanations as simple as possible, without limiting yourself by your own paradigm.

That the former North Pole was located on Greenland can also be proved by calculations.

Milankovitch Cycles (W/m2 at 65ºN) Are No Cause of Glaciations

There is not a single relation between the Solar Insolation and the start of the last ice age. There is also not a single relation between the glacial maximum and Solar Insolation on the Northern Hemisphere. The fluctuation are much too weak to cause or to end an ice age.

Former Geographical Pole

Greenland was situated at the (geo) North Pole between 110,000 and 200,000 years ago. There’s even hardly any doubt about the location. The region of Greenland is in line with the orientation of about 224 ancient pyramids and temples.

That is no coincidence. There is about 1.34-1869 % chance (practically it’s 0) that an arrangement of this magnitude happens accidentally, which is a sure confirmation of something very significant. You have about trillions times trillions times more chance on winning the Power ball. Imagine that!

Our ancestors oriented their structures to a geo pole that appeared to be at that time at another location: Greenland.

This completely new theory explains in the simplest possible way why there is still a thick ice sheet on Greenland. This also explains why there’s even an ice sheet present, while there’s nothing of the ice sheet left on Russia or Canada.

The ice sheet gets thicker the closer we get to the pole. That is what we see on Antarctica today. The current North pole and the former North pole are shifted under an angle of about 14° in latitudinal direction. But the shift didn’t take place overnight. The shift took place over a period of about 80,000 years, between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago.

How the Melting Rate of the Ice Sheet Proceeds

The current location of Greenland makes the ice sheet melt at a very low rate. 99.9% of the melting energy is provided by the Warm Gulf stream. In about 4,000 years from now the ice sheet will be molten completely. In 2100 the sea level will have risen about 8 cm due to the Greenland melt alone. The estimated melting rates of the IPCC are heavily exaggerated  | © 2015-2017 by Mario Buildreps.

The Ice Sheet Will Wax and Wane

Of course will the ice sheet wax and wane a little bit from year to year, from decade to decade, or even from century to century. That’s because Greenland has moved to a part of the Arctic where the temperature’s yo-yoing around zero. But the overall picture is clear. It melts substantially, when measured over a period of a thousand years.

The melting energy comes for less than 0.1% from the airflow, and for 99.9% from the warm Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is present around Greenland to restore the balance after the balance disturbing crustal shift that took place between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago (the crust shifted average about 18.5 m/yr over a period of 80,000 years in the latitudinal direction). The ice sheet melts therefore from below, and hardly from above.

This melting mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with a greenhouse effect. The melting process is fueled by (the balance restoring) El Niño.

The temperatures of the elevated centre part of Greenland is always far beneath zero, while the lower outer edges of Greenland are nearly half of the time way above zero. To model this process is not so easy, even with the understanding what the origin (North pole) of ice sheet was.

If you would zoom in on the smooth graph above that presents a period of about 20,000 years you’ll find an erratic pattern. Climate sceptics will try to zoom in on parts of the erratic pattern and claim that the sheet is growing. That’s an obvious wrong interpretation of a long slow process.

The mass of the massive ice sheet of Greenland has pushed the land mass of Greenland down, leaving high mountain ranges around it. It created a kind of ‘open shop freezer’. The ice sheet has been trapped inside.

Original Thickness of the Greenland Ice Sheet

The fact that the ice sheet on Greenland is still melting, and the former ice sheets of the last glaciation on Russia, Canada and America are long gone, means that the ice sheet on Greenland must have been very thick.

The core temperature of the Greenland ice sheet was much lower as well, because it was situated at the North pole. The other ice sheets on Canada and Russia weren’t as cold as the one on Greenland. The immense thickness and the very low temperature of the Greenland ice sheet, combined with its current polar location (it’s still cold), makes it melt at a very low rate.

This ice sheet will melt anyway, whatever we do. Zero Carbon emission or much Carbon emission. No scientist has ever proven a that CO2 can cause a global temperature change of between 10 to 15°C. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, sure, but a very weak one, and it has been made responsible for something it is incapable of doing. CO2 is the effect, not the cause. CO2 lags behind because it is released by warming oceans and absorbed by cooling oceans, that’s why it lags behind on global temperatures changes.

Calculations, resulting in the graph above, show that the original ice sheet was 32% thicker when it lied on the North Pole, average around 2,200 meters thick. The thickest part of the ice sheet was centered around the pole, and was between 4,000 and 4,500 meters thick.

Rationality: Why Greenland is Covered in Ice

The Greenland Ice Sheet Will Melt In Any Case

The estimation of the IPCC concerning the current melting speed of the Greenland ice sheet are in line with the calculations based upon a shifting crust which took place between 110,000 and 30,000 years ago. Only with this difference that the origin of the ice sheet of Greenland has been determined, and that makes a world of a difference.

The extrapolations of the IPCC concerning the melting rate are exaggerated and based on too many unscientific assumptions.

The ice sheet won’t melt within just a few hundred years. There’s even not enough energy to change ice into water, called heat of fusion, within this short time frame.

When all ice on Greenland is molten into the oceans in about 4,000 years, it will influence the climate on earth dramatically. The risen sea level will influence all coastlines. The energy that was required to melt the ice sheet cannot go anywhere else than into warming the whole atmosphere and the oceans.

The Northern hemisphere will heat up, the Southern hemisphere will cool down. This is a logical part of earth’s balancing mechanism, otherwise it wouldn’t have survived billions of years. But how this exactly will work out is yet unknown.

Evidence for Earth Crust Shifts

Paleomagnetism delivers proof for crustal shift, although scientists may not even recognize it as such.

Scientists assume when they look at the samples of alleged magnetic pole reversals, that the magnetic pole was the only variable that changed, while there’s no way to tell from the samples what has changed – the magnetic pole or the crust. Because the magnetic pole obviously moves, it doesn’t mean the other variable, the crust, is obviously fixed. That’s an unscientific, assumptive error.

It was both that moved. And it can be partially fixed by using the orientation of ancient structures, which show us the way in which position the crust was over the last 400,000 years.

The penny still hasn’t dropped in many scientists that magnetic reversals are in fact evidence for Earth Crust Shifts. Only because we cannot simply solve two variables from just one equation, the assumption is conveniently made that it was only one variable – magnetic reversal. An error which is caused by intellectual laziness, lack of imagination, and a too low consciousness of geoscientists.

Even More Evidence

A next article shows the amazing orientation patterns of more than 500 ancient structures spread around the world. These 500 pyramids point to three different clear locations on Greenland.

And exactly at the same point that was already embraced by the ice sheets of the last glacial cycle. This doesn’t only show an amazing outlining of pyramids around the world, but also that these pyramids are much older than always assumed.

We can find the exact location of the Greenland pole by performing spherical triangulations with the orientation of ancient structures around the world. It has similarities with the way sailors used to find their way on the seas.

Is it Important to Know?

Why it is important to know that the former North pole was once on Greenland? Because this notion has a huge impact on the climate models, and even on the current weather models.

All models somehow try to explain the presence of the ice sheet on Greenland from its current position, and not from the position where it came from, and that the reason is why it is melting in the first place.

As long as the current climate models haven’t included the correct starting parameters, they will all be wrong in their long term predictions.

This is why it is important to know that the former North pole was on Greenland. This theme will be explained in an upcoming new series of articles together with the used data.

A shifting mechanism has serious implications for the Carbon dating method as proposed by Libby in 1947, since the biosphere is not as stable as always assumed. This dating method has become the standard dating technique for organic materials found around ancient sites. It is by definition unreliable when a crustal shifting mechanism is rejected.

But this dating method (the 14C) can be mathematically repaired when we remodel it with the correct parameters from i.a. the crustal dislocations in it. This is a monumental undertaking similar as the remodeling of the paleomagnetic data. But it has to be done to complete the whole picture.

This is why it is important to know, since the theory repairs our view on our planet and our history.

© 2015-2017 by Buildreps

First publication: 09 December 2015